Re: [ietf-822] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-r

On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:37:06 -0700, Dave Crocker said:
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-00.txt
> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 11:42:46 -0700
> From: internet-drafts(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
> To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-crocker-inreply-react-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Dave Crocker and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:         draft-crocker-inreply-react
> Revision:     00
> Title:                React: Indicating Summary Reaction to a Message
   For recipient MUAs that do not support this mechanism, the header
   field might not be displayed to the recipient.  To ensure that the
   reaction is presented to the recipient, the the responding MUA MAY
   automatically include a second copy of the header field in the
   message body.

In-Reply-React: Egads!

Is there enough overlap between "people who use emojis" and
people who use email and people who use MUAs likely to be updated
to support this, to have a decent chance of it getting traction?

   in-reply-react = "In-Reply-React:" emoji *(lwsp emoji) CRLF

So is that 'emoji' a raw UTF-8, or UTF-16, or encoded, or what?

It also fails to address the question of MUA behavior when the "nope badger"
is the proper response....

(Maybe I'm just cranky because I've been chasing a stupid font problem
that makes my MUA blow up every time certain emojis get used in a
Subject: line and it ends up pointing at a corrupted font character that
has a negative width, and Linux 'fontconfig' doesn't make it easy to
figure out which actual font file was used as the render source)

pgp5TbEJYkWp3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822