[rfc-i] Byte order marks

Julian Reschke julian.reschke at gmx.de
Wed Nov 5 09:17:14 PST 2008


Joe Touch wrote:
> 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)

I think that if the UTF-8 version is just an alternate that readers will 
have to discover on their own we won't have achieved the goal we had.

BR, Julian


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list