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

[John C Klensin <[e-mail]>]

--On Thursday, February 25, 2021 21:50 -0500 Ricardo Signes
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021, at 10:57 AM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> 2. As liaison from IETF to Unicode Consortium
>> 
>> I see the document do specify emoji sequences to make it
>> possible to send such things.
>> 
>> emoji = emoji_sequence
>> emoji_sequence = { defined in [Emoji-Seq] }
>> 
>> I am strongly objecting to allow any emoji sequences without
>> having a very well defined rule what what they are. This
>> description above is in an EBNF and the spec references is
>> definitely not that clear.
> 
> It looks like objections have perhaps been rescinded now, but:
> I don't understand the nature of this objection, if it stands.
> 
> 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.  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.

> It's true that the definition of emoji sequence is not (yet?)
> entirely stable.  In the context of message content, I'm not
> sure what teeth the dragon is presenting here.  I agree that I
> would not want to use this reference to TR51 in specifying
> many kinds of things, but in this context, I don't see the
> problem.

See my last two notes.

best,
   john