[rfc-i] New version: draft-hoffman-utf8-rfcs-04.txt

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Nov 4 00:28:51 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Joe Touch wrote:
>> I thought there was consensus to NOT include the BOM in these files (at
>> least there were three of us who spoke up on the issue).
> There were people in favor (such as myself), and people arguing against
> it. Nobody has declared consensus.

I saw only three messages about it...

>> If support for UTF-8 was in fact as universal as asserted in this doc,
>> why is a BOM needed at all?
> That has nothing to do with UTF-8 support being universal or not.
> The issue is that once encoding information is lost (such as when
> transferred via FTP, or loaded from the file system), many clients use a
> default encoding. 

So the default is ASCII, not UTF-8.

> Some of those clients however look at the start of the
> file, detect the BOM, and use UTF-8 instead (such as Notepad and Wordpad).

"some" sounds like a strange reason; if it were "most" or "nearly all"
that'd be different...

> So this is a problem of text/plain (not having optional inline encoding
> information such as XML or HTML), not a problem of UTF-8.

Text/plain is ASCII; UTF-8 creates the problem by deliberately
overloading text/plain to also mean UTF-8.


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


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list