Re: [Last-Call] New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-07.txt

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

John,

On 2/25/2021 9:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>> This is not like the use of non-ASCII characters in domain
>> names, because reactions are not used as resource locators.
>> If a visually confusable emoji is used to replace another, the
>> reader is not misled into arriving at the wrong resource.
> No, but the user may be misled.

And they may not.


>   Since you mention a dragon
> below, consider how would you respond to receiving a single
> dragon emoji response and what would assume the sender was
> trying to convey?  I can sort of guess given your comment about
> teeth, but, if you sent the same symbol/ code point to a Chinese
> colleague, I'd hope you would expect a rather different
> interpretation.

The specter you raise is that an author might make a choice that will be 
misunderstood by a recipient.

Since that problem is not going to be solved in its general form, what 
makes it reasonable to impose it here?

What makes this small mechanism worthy of such a great fear?  And 
especially what makes it greater than for the rest of an author's message?

This is a mechanism that provides a very simple context, for conveying a 
very rich array of symbols.  It lets author and MUA developer decide 
what symbols to use.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net