[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-822] New Version Notification for draft-crocker-inreply-react-00.txt

2020-09-16 07:22:46
I sent this yesterday but it appears to have bounced, so I’m trying again…

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb(_at_)guppylake(_dot_)com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-822] New Version Notification for 
Date: September 15, 2020 at 8:53:29 AM CDT
To: Pete Resnick <resnick(_at_)episteme(_dot_)net>
Cc: dcrocker(_at_)bbiw(_dot_)net, ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org

This is a promising idea, but I think it’s got an important flaw.  (John and 
Bron have a point, we should specify an encoding, but that’s not the flaw I’m 
focused on.)

Reactions != Emojis.  My concern is that this proposal may be making a 
mistake that is the opposite of Facebook’s.  For years Facebook had only 
“like” and got lots of criticism.   They added a few more reactions and they 
now get a bit less criticism.  On the one hand, it seems unfair that they 
have so much power that they can dictate the set of acceptable emotional 
reactions for mankind.  But on the other hand, the kitchen-sink list from includes so many icons that it’s not clear that people will be 
able to speak a common emoji language and know what each other’s reactions 
mean.    The emoji list is a vast superset of the set of shared human 
reactions.  (If someone posts a message about a political rally, and someone 
else responds with an icon of a stack of pancakes, what does that mean?  I 
have no idea.  Or, as a color blind person, can you tell me what am I missing 
if I can’t differentiate between a "green heart” emoji and an "orange heart” 

I’m no fan of Facebook, but they have kept the set of emojis down to 
something that is pretty much universally comprehensible.  I think it’s worth 
considering whether we can create a set that is less restrictive than 
facebook’s, but remains close to universally comprehensible.  It’s tempting 
to say that emojis are trivial, but if the Internet is all about facilitating 
human communication, a common emotional language for reactions would be a big 
help.  — Nathaniel

On Sep 15, 2020, at 9:39 PM, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:

On 9/15/2020 11:15 AM, Brandon Long wrote:
Forgive me, I assumed it was a joke and reacted in kind.

You assumed that I wrote an internet-draft specification, submitted it, and 
forwarded a copy of the notice to this list was a joke?  A draft which 
contained pointedly mundane specification language, followed typically 
mundane specification style, and had no language, reference or apparent 
indication of irony.  You thought that was a joke?

And you thought that acting on an assumption lacking any meaningful 
foundation was appropriate to pursue in public, in that fashion?

What's most odd is that your usual tone and content of postings in this forum 
are notably professional.

So, forgive me but your forgive me seems just a bit thin.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking

ietf-822 mailing list

ietf-822 mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>