[UA-discuss] 69 New Emoji Have Been Approved By Unicode - Just in case you thought this Emoji stuff was a flash in the pan ????
asmusf at ix.netcom.com
Mon Apr 3 17:23:07 UTC 2017
On 4/3/2017 9:41 AM, Andre Schappo wrote:
> Given an email address local-part at domain-name
> The restrictions for a domain-name has been fairly well defined though
> perhaps in some need of revision. Plus, registries can further
> restrict permitted characters. Verisign make such restrictions as
> lists of permitted unicode characters. The Chinese list makes for an
> interesting read eg the only permitted character in the CJK
> Compatibility Ideographs block is U+FA28 﨨
Only 12 code points in that block are PVALID. U+FA28 is one of them,
essentially because it was misidentified as "compatibility", when, in
fact, it is a Unified Ideograph.
> The point I am making WRT the domain-name is that, currently, it is
> largely determined by standards, standards groups and registries.
> With EAI and the local-part I consider we have an opportunity for more
> freedom in choice of permitted characters. I would like to see the
> local-part more user oriented. Give users more freedom to choose their
> local-part identities. So yes I am in support of, for example, emoji
> in the local-part.
> There is, of course, the issue of security. I consider that currently
> one of the most serious security issues is that many systems nowadays
> hide part of the email address and it can be impossible to get some
> systems to default to display the full email address.
> Take email addresses of the form (there are other forms)
> comment <full email address>
> One web mail system I use shows ONLY the comment part. In order for me
> to see the full email address I need to click the from: field and then
> hover over the partial email address which is displayed in order to
> view the full email address. It is really really infuriating and
> really really flawed security. I have never found a setting to make it
> display the full email address. I do go through the tedious process of
> viewing and checking the full email address with the click and the
> hover but how many people would bother.
> An email identity is not just the comment part, it is not just the
> local-part, it is the full email address. It is the full email address
> that is the unique identitifier. Personally, I would happily see the
> demise of the comment part. The comment part is spoofing made easy.
> So, I think there should be an open discussion on the permitted
> unicode characters for the local-part. I certainly do not think the
> local part permitted characters should be as restrictive as the IDNA
> André Schappo
>> On 3 Apr 2017, at 16:08, Mark Svancarek via UA-discuss
>> <UA-discuss at icann.org <mailto:UA-discuss at icann.org>> 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>
>> [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
>> <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>>
>> *Cc:* ua-discuss at icann.org <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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/
>> <http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/> about visual
>> spoofing, I hope the recommendation is just that emoji are
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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,
>> Andrew Sullivan
>> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3749 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the UA-discuss