[rfc-i] Byte Order Marks for UTF-8
paul.hoffman at vpnc.org
Wed Jul 18 08:54:38 PDT 2012
On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:24 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> Actually, the BOM is super-useful for UTF-16; fortunately, there’s
> very little of that being sent over the wires. And any software whose
> correct functioning requires a BOM in UTF-8 is pretty badly broken.
I am assuming that one of the formats that the RFC Editor will publish in is "plain UTF-8 text", and that those RFC files might be received by a reader with some protocol that doesn't transmit encoding information, such as rsync. Given those assumptions, it would seem prudent to test using BOMs and not using BOMs and see what text programs do with the files under different circumstances.
More information about the rfc-interest