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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> > 2.  Reaction Content-Disposition
> >
> >
> >     The rule emoji_sequence is inherited from [Emoji-Seq].  It permits
> >     one or more bytes to form a single presentation image.
> >
> > I haven't traced the definition of emoji_sequence, but it seems to be
> > essentially a set of Unicode characters that have one or another of
> > certain attributes.  That is perfectly sensible.  But if I understand
> > correctly, "emoji_sequence" is a sequence of characters, and you want
> > to say "In the UTF-8 encoding, some of these characters may be encoded
> > as multiple bytes." or something like that.
>
> Sorry but I'm not understanding what clarity this provides, over the
> existing text.
>
> 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.
>


I’m guessing that Dale is thinking that this is like composed characters,
such as creating “á” from “a” plus combining acute accent.  The thing is,
though, it’s not that.  What Dave is describing (perhaps an example in the
text would help explain) is the sort of thing that’s unique to emoji,
wherein the emojis for man followed by woman followed by boy, each of which
is a separate emoji character that would be displayed as it seems, will
often be rendered as a single image of a family, just because they’re coded
together.

I thunk the text that Dave has is correct — certainly more correct than the
suggestion, which would imply character composition rather than the image
composition that’s being discussed here.

I don’t think a change to the text will really help, but a “(for example,
...)” might.

Barry




>