On 10/5/2020 10:00 PM, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
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!"?
IMO: Given that the context for this is an email message, and email
already provides places for text, providing one more will just add
unnecessary complexity to this specification, without adding serious
capability.
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.
The current draft already allows for more than one emoji.
I'd expect length limits to be handled by the usual, 'environmental'
limits on header-fields.
(Also, anyone listing enough emojis to run into that limit probably has
bigger problems...)
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
ietf-822 mailing list
ietf-822(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-822