[UA-discuss] 69 New Emoji Have Been Approved By Unicode - Just in case you thought this Emoji stuff was a flash in the pan 🍳💥

Jothan Frakes jothan at jothan.com
Mon Apr 3 16:38:31 UTC 2017


Sure - and the short version of my initial comment had suggested we perhaps
as part of our discussion we have a prepared message around 'while you are
under the hood to add smileys, why not enable access to a massive group of
new customers'


Jothan Frakes
Tel: +1.206-355-0230


On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Mark Svancarek <marksv at microsoft.com> wrote:

> The topic is in scope for discussion at the UASG meeting.  We should have
> a point of view and share it.  We should have a point of view on the work
> John and Asmus are doing, too.
>
>
>
> I agree with Andrew’s points about emojis at this time.
>
>
>
> *From:* ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Jothan Frakes
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 1, 2017 1:06 AM
> *To:* Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> *Cc:* ua-discuss at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [UA-discuss] 69 New Emoji Have Been Approved By Unicode -
> Just in case you thought this Emoji stuff was a flash in the pan 🍳💥
>
>
>
> I started to reply in thread but I think it is better to say that i am
> aware of and we are in violent agreement about emoji issues with IDNA.
>
>
>
> On Mar 31, 2017 12:29, "Andrew Sullivan" <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 12:00:53PM -0700, Jothan Frakes wrote:
> > I see this on the agenda for the Redmond/Seattle group meetings - are we
> > deciding if this is in scope or not?
>
> In scope for what?  Emoji are just not allowed in the server-part
> unless you're suggesting that this group ought to be promoting names
> that are contrary to every IETF specification on the matter and are
> contrary to the ICANN IDN guidelines.  If this group is in fact going
> to recommend sugh things, I predict that the future of acceptance is
> going to be even further from universal than you'd like.
>
> Perhaps you're talking about recommendations for use of emoji in
> local-parts, since email addresses are identifiers.  Given the
> discussion in http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/ about visual
> spoofing, I hope the recommendation is just that emoji are interesting
> but poorly suited for identifiers.  Since people can put literally
> anything they want in the local-part, they're going to do what they
> want anyway.
>
>
> > efforts towards solutions in UA, and on the plus side, Emoji support
> seems
> > to get attention from the developers at the moment.
>
> Of course it does.  Emoji are fun and cool.  The problem is that
> they'll create an enormous security problem if people try to use them
> for real in identifiers, at least today.
>
>
> > Emoji domains on the left side of the dot do work in a small subset of
> the
> > existing TLDs
>
> In some browsers.  And what is this "the left side of the dot" of
> which you speak?  DNS names are hierarchical.  There are lots of
> possible dots.
>
> >    - Addition of Emoji support as a primary project with an opportunity
> to
>
> >    introduce UA readiness - Developer 'in the code' for Emoji support
> can be
> >    more efficient for the team and address the matters that give access
> to the
> >    next billion customers.
>
> I am having a very hard time understanding what "in the code for emoji
> support" means, so I'd like to narrow that down.
>
>
> > What I mean about Emoji is that they are often used as short form and are
> > composed using characters like :) (colon closeparen) that would be
> > typically illegal in a DOMAIN, URI, URL, SMTP or other protocol - so it
> may
> > open a new set of challenges beyond the already daunting set we're hoping
> > to chip away at in the existing quixotic list.
>
> The string ":)" is perfectly legal in the DNS but not legal in IDNA or
> under the LDH rules.  It's extremely hard to use, however.  The same
> is true in local-parts of email.
>
>
> > messenger applications.  Try :) in skype, facebook other messenger and in
> > most cases it converts to the emoji smiley face.
>
> Sometimes this is for display and sometimes this is on the wire.
> Figuring out which would be important.  I can think of recommendations
> that would be useful to developers here, but they might be more
> properly developed as technical recommendations.
>
> >    - There would have an issue with the interplay of IDNA and the
>
> >    'automagic' emoji handling / conversion apps perform.
>
> Like that emoji and all punctuation are both not allowed under IDNA.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170403/8c527c99/attachment.html>


More information about the UA-discuss mailing list