Re: [Gen-art] [Last-Call] Genart last call review of draft-crocker-inreply-react-07

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 1/28/2021 12:21 AM, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-01-27 at 19:35 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>> To the extent that your intent is to say that a) this is a subset of
>> UTF-8, and b) multiple bytes can be used, I think that's built into the
>> definition of emoji-sequence.
>>
>> In fact, I had added the one or more text mostly to highlight the the
>> 'sequence' can be only one byte, since 'sequence' would be expected to
>> be read as meaning multiple.
> 
> One small change here which will reduce the amount of confusion is to
> avoid the word "byte".  Indeed, it is *not* possible for the sequence
> to be only one byte, since there are no Unicode code points in the
> range U+0000 U+007F with the Emoji property set.
> 
> So, use "emoji characters" or "code points" instead?
> 
> (I tend to avoid the use of "byte" in favour of "octet" to forestall
> complaints from the old DEC-10, DEC-20 and Cray users anyway ☺)

Well, indeed, my entrenched use of byte probably gets in the way, here...

I want the term to be more low-level and physical, than abstract or 
conceptual.  That is, I'd like the term to be outside of the Unicode 
specialized terminology.  To that end, I think octet works well.


>>>      Reference to unallocated code points SHOULD NOT be treated as an
>>>      error; associated bytes SHOULD be processed using the system default
>>>      method for denoting an unallocated or undisplayable code point.
>>>
>>> Code points that do not have the requisite attributes to qualify as
>>> part of an emoji_sequence should also not be treated as an error,
>>> although you probably want to allow the system to alternatively
>>> display them normally (rather than as an unallocated or undisplayable
>>> code point).
>>
>> I think your comment addresses a different issue than the cited text is
>> meant for, but I also might be misunderstanding.
> 
> Probably, but I think it bears saying something about how to handle
> code points without the Emoji property set.  IMHO they should be
> handled as undisplayable.

This steps into user interface design, more than interoperable emoji 
labeling and transport.

As such, it's outside of this specification and outside of the IETF's 
expertise.


d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net