On 05 Oct 2020 23:19:39 -0400, "John R Levine" said:
Well, Keith wrote RFC 2047, so he knows more about this than I do, but I
think that saying that it's a MIME encoded-word like the unstructured
text in any other header should do the trick.
That fixes the encoding issue, and did we decide to punt on what to do
with a "reaction" that consists of a emoji and a short text, like ":) I'm on
it!"?
On one hand, that introduces length issues, but on the other hand, I don't know
how to write RFC-ese for "allow more than one emoji" without allowing that
sort of reply as well. Any MIME-aware MSA or MTA should Just Work if the
header has 'MIME encoded-word' in it, so maybe just a "an MUA MAY truncate
the display of excessively long reactions" may be sufficient?
(Actually, if the final version says it's an encoded-word, and include the "MUA
MAY
truncate", I'm pretty sure that addresses all of my concerns...)
pgprzwEfDZKKr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822