[rfc-i] Byte order marks

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Wed Nov 5 09:22:34 PST 2008


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



Julian Reschke wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps, but it might be a useful step in the right direction, allowing
users to wring the bugs out of the system before we step towards UTF-8
as a primary. And when we do go to UTF-8 as a primary, we should, IMO,
use .utf8 as the suffix there. I.e., that's a separate issue.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkkR1loACgkQE5f5cImnZruKWgCg5VDZ+xAj8Y1EesXZvgTYqnAK
IDMAn3bYVYWgjlzew7Mjj05B22ef6av5
=iE9Q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list