[rfc-i] Byte Order Marks for UTF-8

Phillip Hallam-Baker hallam at gmail.com
Wed Jul 18 08:11:44 PDT 2012

I think the tools need to accept a BOM but not require one.

It took me quite a while to work out why my XML sometimes worked and
sometimes did not. It turned out that my tools added a BOM which was
being stripped out again in some cases and not in others.

Much better if nobody had introduced BOMs into XML in the first place.
The declaration defines the encoding for a start. But they did and we
need to live with the consequences.

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman at vpnc.org> wrote:
> On Jul 18, 2012, at 12:47 AM, Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> I'm reluctant for now to add a BOM, because that might give some hick-ups to some kind of processing.
> Given that some people said "this works fine if there is a BOM", I think that experimenting with BOMs is actually worthwhile.
> --Paul Hoffman
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

Website: http://hallambaker.com/

More information about the rfc-interest mailing list