Re: [ietf-822] RFC 9078 Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/9/2024 2:01 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> I thought of this draft today because the feature was requested:
>
> https://www.threads.net/@anildash/post/C5jMbA2OruN

thanks for including the RFC reference to that thread.


>
> I noticed a few problems that might inhibit adoption.
>
> I think the base set should include ⭐ and ♥️. One of these two can be 
> found in GMail and most social media apps.

There are different preferred subsets, across different systems that use 
emojis in an integrated way.  So there is not single, perfect choice.  I 
choice an easy, simplistic set, to cover an obvious range of reactions, 
where there is already a solid history of their use.

It's not that other choices are not reasonable, it's that there is a 
constantly changing landscape.

More importantly, the base set does not limit addition of others, 
however the creator of the reaction implementation wishes.


> A smaller issue is the ABNF production called "base-emojis". 
> Pluralizing "emoji" that way is ok according to most English 
> dictionaries, but I think it's better to leave off the "s" for a 
> worldwide standard (for example, you can't add an "s" to "kanji").*

"base" is an English word.  And, as you note, emoji is ok to pluralize 
with an s.  I don't quite see how 'kanji' is relevant as an example of 
there being a problem.

Ultimately, ABNF rulenames are just tags intended to have some mnemonic 
benefit.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@[e-mail]