--On Wednesday, 03 March, 2021 11:06 -0800 Dave Crocker <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/2/2021 1:40 PM, Ned Freed wrote: >>> 4. If the part contains code points outside the >>> implementation's vocabulary, it MAY process them as >>> undisplayable. >> I think this assigns the base-emoji set a too much importance >> in the overall scheme of things. But if the consensus is >> otherwise, I can live with it. > > > Defining a normative core is typically Very Good practice for > a protocol, to ensure basic interoperability. > > At this stage, however, I think we do not know enough about > the way this will get used to be able to assign normative > status to a core set of emojis. "Basic interoperability" here > has more to do with humans than computers. > > If the Experiment produces clear guidance we can easily > incorporate it to make give normative status to support for a > core set of emojis. I agree but, if you expect the Experiment to possibly produce clear guidance about what, if anything, should be in a normative, possibly minimum, set of emoji to be supported, should not one of the questions be "If you know and it seem important, what emoji are you supporting and which ones are your users actually using?" or something like that? john -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
