[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt

Tim Bray tbray at textuality.com
Sun Oct 19 09:23:08 PDT 2008


On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:

> As the IETF itself requires all new work to allow non-ASCII characters,
> and the UTF-8 spec is a full standard, we really should eat our own dog
> food. Therefore, I'd like the UTF-8 proposal to move forward, with the
> problems pointed out being fixed (FF currently disallowed), and
> potentially requiring the UTF-8 BOM.

I would be in favor of recommending but requiring a UTF-8 BOM.
Requiring it would be quite onerous for some authors, as many popular
authoring tools don't generate one.
-Tim


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list