IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com> Tue, 09 April 2024 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9834BC14F6FC for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B8EXzDzjkh4W for <ietf-822@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16261C14F5F4 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2024 14:01:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-56e2c1650d8so4515754a12.0 for <ietf-822@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1712696502; x=1713301302; darn=ietf.org; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K6sS1gxQNoPmBvg5+UPJLv4q2mmJNrQs16leAXeDNs0=; b=hvyGn80IeczGSQZnwp/cN1LwNbl25YQBZ7uolUuTe+5LJ9CVCrqS32fPkHrUw3VZt5 5RSUg05df+GYerb7lKKrfAxkEToNlsB/up0qs2wupvD/y18wrd8PWQdqmgv4dFAKKWyQ VhynQnnlCP/eAOPtTauCDi/slMvCR+iQy6WJjD+tdf/1Ea6gio/JZAGsjQe5aObg536h 2xGe5NriPXfBcgRVWXrcYk4fZK0vqsAyx2YRQF2UfaLoLGE3eCeFCTlLXTJpoCSITImy p8kCyelNwK/K1GCCV8/jCFX104whRNRfkgqIRwKSm02pUlYP2vUZNren2w3qY5kbDRbD 2Q+Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712696502; x=1713301302; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=K6sS1gxQNoPmBvg5+UPJLv4q2mmJNrQs16leAXeDNs0=; b=PBHSjf4RY7V83q1VRhH8SD84H3l7qKbaNsU9UgHo7YbJYRNaLmqwNbNBMELDPnRspb TRCNCJQb9K65oWtT+5p8QTSlKRO+XgfdUrEnNjjuRzXNYC0D41X5FnMpoOTWO+s4Y1x5 RZZ0dFidcDfNSX2c/RU0UbQyMS8/HVRxM9znypWBxA4XuRyMzTPYsss8BEqNC16nGqV/ zdJ78NMd7tmo5jJUx6cz3PCyL4DMPGG4AvSk+HM29Ctkpp/o5Ns4inFPf/oTSiVjoDsq Ul11dM6SXP9/VGOeCQmuVafiJ7f0hPXPsoClX7th5FWr85+o60KbtYEP86hiOYWwFBiz u1cQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxyvmuCxksZDRufulF/DRKMyOQdPUoMy4L6GizcOPkfAJx+3jx1 4pjMipeekfQTOsQl/rzbNy1expIQIvmVZeQT3HnoW0RIzctQ/+xJZ80f3wSkH4ykGOdSEdxysOx MSo+9eutkXCqbC6jxn+WOy5ZChf9s6BwCUe786Y22
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFIurePiimYSiJDKxC/B2klKOcKNDSdRCU4482b2H4yZNvTidrV1kKLSul/29K/UMs2AHr4DEUbc2aDB+jMx5o=
X-Received: by 2002:a50:ab16:0:b0:56e:2aef:f92e with SMTP id s22-20020a50ab16000000b0056e2aeff92emr437096edc.17.1712696502243; Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:01:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Rob Sayre <sayrer@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 14:01:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwVPb7nX-8bmoPtTGuuW1jHoKnMkiwcrLQhi5_avPCxoA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-822@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009fdfbd0615b03a9b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-822/1FtfNJsdWPykCXznEgzJnTVx8Q8>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] RFC 9078 Reaction: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
X-BeenThere: ietf-822@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Discussion of issues related to Internet Message Format \[RFC 822, RFC 2822, RFC 5322\]" <ietf-822.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-822/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-822@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822>, <mailto:ietf-822-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2024 21:01:49 -0000

Hi,

I thought of this draft today because the feature was requested:

https://www.threads.net/@anildash/post/C5jMbA2OruN

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.

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").*

thanks,
Rob

* https://www.grammarly.com/blog/emojis-emoji/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email