[rfc-i] Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-03.txt
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Sun Oct 19 14:54:39 PDT 2008
Tim Bray wrote:
> 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.
We may not have to require it from the submitter, but the posting
process surely could add the BOM automatically (when not present and the
content contains non-ASCII characters)...
I think the more important question is: will the presence of the BOM
negatively affect any clients?
More information about the rfc-interest