On 2017-09-18 20:13, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, at 2:01 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx
<mailto:julian.reschke@xxxxxx>> wrote:
I believe a better argument is that we do not control the tools that
people use to read plain text RFCs, and that we found that some
important ones simply work better with the BOM.
If we believe that it is a bug for an application to fail to correctly
display a UTF-8 file without a BOM, then the fact that some significant
number of apps currently do the wrong thing isn't compelling. Browsers
have very rapid development cycles. The fact that some browsers Dave
Thaler tested three years ago didn't do the right thing is not a good
enough reason to use BOMs now. The question should be "what is the
best solution," not "what works best with legacy apps?"
Browsers are not the issue (well, when accessing HTTP resources). They
all follow the Content-Type response header field (which has the
character encoding), and we can set it.
The problems are tools that do *not* have the metadata. That is:
download the RFC and double-click it in Windows.
...
Best regards, Julian