On Sep 15, 2017, at 22:50, Denis Ovsienko <denis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The presence of BOM in a UTF-8 file exactly follows Section 2 of RFC 7994 (Requirements for Plain-Text RFCs). Yes, I missed that sentence buried in that RFC at the time. Still FAIL, still utterly disappointing. STD0063 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629#section-6 (Look for all the sentences starting “A protocol SHOULD forbid use of U+FEFF as a signature...“.) "Use of a BOM is neither required nor recommended for UTF-8": http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode10.0.0/ch02.pdf RFC 7994 is a massive regression here. Grüße, Carsten