Errata ID: 6208
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: David Golden
Date Reported: 2020-06-10
Rejected by: Barry Leiba
Date Rejected: 2020-06-10
Section 8.1 says:
In the interests of interoperability, implementations that parse JSON texts MAY ignore the presence of a byte order mark rather than treating it as an error.
It should say:
In the interests of interoperability, implementations that parse JSON texts MAY ignore the presence of a byte order mark or MAY interpret a byte order mark to indicate an alternate encoding rather than treating it as an error.
The original line is copied from previous RFCs that specifically allowed alternate encodings. In the context of a new, UTF-8 only restriction, interoperability provisions should also address interpreting legacy formats that predate the restriction. By omission, readers may conclude that the *only* option for a BOM is to ignore or error.
This is asking to revisit what we have consensus on, not a report of an error in the RFC.
The working group had extensive discussions on BOMs, and chose this particular working purposefully.