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

Asmus Freytag 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 
> http://www.verisign.com/assets/languagefiles/CHI.html

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 
> standards.
> 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
>>     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 <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170403/e1cca0b9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: hafegondilakgllm.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3749 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20170403/e1cca0b9/hafegondilakgllm.png>

More information about the UA-discuss mailing list