[rfc-i] New version: draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Tue Nov 4 00:22:51 PST 2008
Joe Touch wrote:
> 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).
There were people in favor (such as myself), and people arguing against
it. Nobody has declared consensus.
> If support for UTF-8 was in fact as universal as asserted in this doc,
> why is a BOM needed at all?
That has nothing to do with UTF-8 support being universal or not.
The issue is that once encoding information is lost (such as when
transferred via FTP, or loaded from the file system), many clients use a
default encoding. Some of those clients however look at the start of the
file, detect the BOM, and use UTF-8 instead (such as Notepad and Wordpad).
So this is a problem of text/plain (not having optional inline encoding
information such as XML or HTML), not a problem of UTF-8.
More information about the rfc-interest