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

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Two things here, speaking as he AD who agreed to sponsor what I thought
would be an uncontroversial Experimental document:

1. This is an Experimental draft defining a way to put an (or a few, and
maybe the problem is not keeping it to one) emoji symbol in a reply as a
reaction to the original message, with the idea that said emoji symbol
might be shown in a conveniently streamlined way in the UI.  Variations of
that, such as putting in arbitrary strings, might also be reasonable
experiments, but they’re not this one.  I agree with Dave when he says that
keeping it simpler is better.

2. My personal image of this, which does relate to existing practice, is
based on the iOS Message app.  If I get a text message from someone, I can
long-press the message and get a popup that offers me six symbols to react
with.  Those symbols are a heart, a thumb up, a thumb down, a “ha ha”, two
exclamation points, and a question mark.  Of course, I can compose a text
message in response that has anything else I want to say, including a whole
long string of emoji... but the “reaction” interface is quite simple and
easy.  And when someone sends, say, a heart reaction to me, it’s up to me
to decide whether that means, “What a great photo!”, or “I’m in love with
you!”, or “I’d really like to be your cardiologist.”

I do think that this might be useful, is a worthwhile experiment, won’t
cause any real damage to the email system, and should best be kept simpler,
rather than being made more complicated.

I think text suggestions that add clarification or make the extent of the
experiment clearer are quite reasonable.  But I’m puzzled by objections to
trying it out to see how well it works.

Barry

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:40 PM John R Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:

> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> I'd flip it around.  What reason do we have to believe that any
> particular
> >> restricted vocabulary that we might define would be useful to users we
> >> don't know and who may not even speak any language we speak?
> >
> > cf, the reference to established practice, which is distinguished from
> > free-form text, which is what you now seem to be proposing
>
> I see a rule allowing a string of emoji, which we've heard is problematic,
> and a base-emoji rule which has an unupported assertion that it's five
> emoji developed from existing practice, although I'm not aware of any
> existing application that uses that set.  Do you have a reference?  In the
> apps I use, the set of emoji responses differs from one device to the next
> and is invariably very large, hundreds at least.
>
> > (which is odd, > given what stage of processing this draft is in.)
>
> I agree that it was extremely premature to last call this draft.
>
> Regards,
> John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
> Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly--
>
> last-call mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
>