Re: [ietf-822] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-01.txt

[Ricardo Signes <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020, at 1:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Note:
> 
> Diff:  https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-crocker-inreply-react-01

A coworker and I had -just- been discussing a nearly identical idea.  I mentioned it to Bron, who mentioned this draft to me.

I just had two things I thought might be worth chiming in on:

First:  This one is a bit tedious, but since I was going to post here anyway:  the definition of emoji should refer to emoji characters *and sequences*, lest it omit lots of non-single-character emoji.  (Even the humble red heart is more than one character.)

The other thought was about the question of what goes in the body.  Specifically, we discussed a means to distinguish "Look, I just want to send 👍🏽 and nothing else" from "I would like to write a treatise on the ways in which I agree, but if you are not prepared to bask in the glory of my prose, I guess you can summarize it as 👍🏽".  This would allow (for example) a means to count up reactions of a type, even when there's content, and would also allow user agents to avoid drawing whole messages when the content was trivial.  Something like "Header-Contains-Whole-Message: yes" would sum that up, meaning "reaction if provided, otherwise subject".  It's out of scope for this draft as written, but I think multiplies the draft's value.

-- 
rjbs