[rfc-i] New version: draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Mon Nov 3 23:27:56 PST 2008


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I thought there was consensus to NOT include the BOM in these files (at
least there were three of us who spoke up on the issue).

If support for UTF-8 was in fact as universal as asserted in this doc,
why is a BOM needed at all?

Joe

Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>
>> 	Title		: Using non-ASCII Characters in RFCs
>> 	Author(s)	: T. Bray, P. Hoffman
>> 	Filename	: draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt
>> 	Pages		: 9
>> 	Date		: 2008-11-3
>> 	
>> This document specifies a change to the IETF process in which
>>   Internet Drafts and RFCs are allowed to contain non-ASCII characters.
>>   The proposed change is to change the encoding of Internet Drafts and
>>   RFCs to UTF-8.
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt
> 
> We have incorporated many changes from the last round of discussion.
> 
> Earlier, people asked to see how this draft would look if it actually had UTF-8 in it. I put it on a web site, but people argued about how the content-type and character set affected how they saw it. This time, I'm attaching the UTF-8ized version to this message in a way that I'm 99% sure will be have
> Content-Type: application/octet-stream. That should be closer to how the file would be handled in the real world of FTP servers and manual copying and so on. FWIW, the attached file starts with a UTF-8 byte order mark.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> --Paul Hoffman, Director
> --VPN Consortium
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkP+XwACgkQE5f5cImnZrvtfQCgw9vkm7SqnttkCbKnhomnAvC3
Zn8AoMWVggfpOY1TDI+qxqUWnnVbdT8G
=VYmh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list