On 3/3/2021 1:28 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Wednesday, 03 March, 2021 11:06 -0800 Dave Crocker
<dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
cf my recent posting about false precision.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
