<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/11/2019 10:51 PM, Patrick Patrick
Davison wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJm=Nu+eP07f1hhFDZyyxLG0F9Ny=WGGbWSEehjic=PjnGUdDA@mail.gmail.com"><span
style="font-family:Georgia,serif;background-image:initial;background-position:initial;background-size:initial;background-repeat:initial;background-origin:initial;background-clip:initial"><font
color="#0000ff">. A
fundamental property of the DNS is that it is an exact-match
lookup service.
For a given query, either there is a single name that matches
or there is no
match. When two domain names are identical in appearance
except for ordinary
typographic style variations (which, at present, have no
equivalent for emoji),
but have different underlying code points, they identify two
different DNS
domains.</font></span></blockquote>
<p><font face="Candara">While all true, the above fundamental
properties do not apply to e-mail addresses - which is what
"mailbox" name in the subject line refers to.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">Apart from that point, many of your
arguments could be applied to e-mail addresses.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">What is missing is writing an actual
statement that extracts from the useful statements posted here
bye various people a single statement that squarely addresses
the issue in the framework of email addresses and that could be
the formal position of UASG on why or to what degree emoji fall
outside the universal acceptance scope.</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">BTW, the argument made by some people here
that they represent an "inferior form" (my term) of
communication compared to natural languages is rather weak and I
prefer not to rely on it.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Candara">A./</font><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>