[UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in mailbox name.

[Tex]

Andrew,

Fair enough. In that case a suitable tailored profile needs to be identified for mailboxes, as the UTC recommendation for identifiers has flexibility dependent on the syntax and usage of its application and isn't a one size fits all specification.

I can also agree the discussion of the specifics falls outside of UASG. However a warning to those supporting Universal Acceptance that there are issues that still need resolving and to be conservative around allowing emoji and other graphical characters until there is clarity seems appropriate to improve gathering support. Without a caution, users experiencing significant difficulties will counter our messages and delay acceptance.

tex


-----Original Message-----
From: UA-discuss [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 2:05 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] interesting to note about emoji in mailbox name.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:29:27AM -0700, Tex wrote:
> We need to declare an explicit list of characters that should be avoided.

No, you most certainly should not do this.  You should do it the other
way.  The PRECIS guidelines are the approach to follow.

> As the argument against allowing emoji is largely based on confusability

The argument against allowing emoji is based on the UTC's
recommendations for identifiers, not confusability.  This entire topic
is well-trod ground.

Best regards,

A
-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com