Nice to hear from you Francesco!
But, I was thinking:
this nice idea came from the socials where (in some cases like
the reaction can be an emoji or a comment (or both).
So, why not to define two types of reaction:
- short text (comment)
The short text reaction is similar to a reply by a text message, but
have a different semantics so that clients developers could use it
in a different way than a reply message.
It's not clear to me how this differs from a regular response, or
more to the point, how a client would handle it differently.
The user reading a message could select an emoji or insert a comment in
a short reaction text field.
For both cases a reaction email will be sent by the client.
For the comments (reaction text) the user doesn’t need to pass through
the “standard” path to compose a reply message.
On the opposite, when a client displays a message it can “add” a view of
the reactions (emoji, text or both). The reaction text is not threated
like a reply message.
I think that we can see the benefits mainly on small displays, like
Emoji reactions and short-text reactions should be carried by two
reaction message types. "Simple" is for: a message with only the top
Well, one of the nice things about this proposal is as long as we make
that the current content-disposition is only defined in conjuction with
"emoji", we can always extende it later to other uses. But for now I
keeping the ask we're making of client developers small is a good idea.
.... I agree with you that keeping the ask small is a good idea and that
we can always extend the specification in the future.
Istituto di Scienza e Tecnologie dell'Informazione (ISTI)
National Research Council (CNR)
Area della Ricerca CNR di Pisa
Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124 Pisa ITALY
phone: +39 050 315 2592
ietf-822 mailing list