On 9/18/17 15:18, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Sep 18, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Do we? Can you cite something
that makes this claim under color of consensus?
Also, consider what it takes to make catting a UTF-8
file work in a terminal program. ISTM that the only way for it
to not spew garbage characters is for the terminal program to
understand UTF-8 without requiring a BOM. I suppose you could
make the terminal program elide the BOM wherever it's
encountered in the output stream (on a character boundary), but
this isn't how BOMs are supposed to work.
Given that the formal name for the thing we're calling a BOM is
"ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE" -- which is a pretty accurate
description for how it is intended to be rendered in UTF-8 -- I'm
not sure what kind of visual damage you've envisioning here.
/a