[rfc-i] Byte order marks

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Nov 5 09:07:00 PST 2008


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



Julian Reschke wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> ...
>>> Looking more carefully at the Emacs 23 implementation, it has several
>>> coding systems.  The utf-8 coding system is the default, and it does not
>>> parse or generate signature BOM.  There is a utf-8-auto coding system
>>> that will ignore leading BOM.  There is auto-detect features that
>>> automatically changes the coding system when the input is not detected
>>> as UTF-8 (e.g., Latin-1).
>>
>> Understood. These are all, IMO, good reasons to never include the BOM.
>> ...
> 
> For the record: I disagree with that. These are good reasons to fix
> implementations.

I agree with fixing implementations, but there are numerous other
reasons a BOM is problematic, as noted in RFC3629.

I liked the other suggestion that:
	- UTF-8 be flagged using the .utf8 suffix
	- UTF-8 be considered an eligible alternate, as is already
	  done for postscript

(at least that's how I understood the suggestion, and as I would support it)

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkkR0rQACgkQE5f5cImnZrstBACgmyIOi7tQxV5ZWe93HS7yE+1x
IVAAniJX5BKcf05mpUr14cLI3ng/yDch
=Mhvd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list