Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 16:31:52 -0400
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@xxxxxxx>, ietf@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <59434030-4934-8d10-6509-2c128f91bfdb@nostrum.com>
References: <09b0ed8b-c47a-83c3-9174-cce990bdb145@rfc-editor.org> <6d9d9622-5f9b-673e-3f0f-bba32d859bc1@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp> <7341e6cf-daf0-bd18-3199-eed33f3c1f0e@rfc-editor.org> <00c301d32e41$e948f160$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <15e8698a857.c32afce7287357.8469431812243660972@ovsienko.info> <55215BEF-7520-4425-98F6-6BE1678F2C57@tzi.org> <15e874e49f1.c1362fb757242.2533006499702663721@ovsienko.info> <20170916153239.thscwu7ljiz37xcn@sources.org> <4815e600-7ec2-86a5-85ac-7ac508185881@gmx.de> <C1FD5021-9193-40FF-846D-B948407A6E41@tzi.org> <1d4033e5-48d2-b62c-d0a2-476ba7541034@nostrum.com> <c53bcaeb-f660-538e-f1f9-3aa213a77c3c@gmx.de> <68C17F98-15AB-4AA5-BB4B-B46D53C51585@fugue.com> <83c37ab2-51f7-9a94-2b86-2b4fbe1cd1d6@nostrum.com> <58B80046-9C95-4412-A374-FA27F5048250@fugue.com> <59434030-4934-8d10-6509-2c128f91bfdb@nostrum.com>

On Sep 18, 2017, at 4:26 PM, Adam Roach <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

When you copy and paste the text, does it copy the ZWNBS or not?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: tom p.
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Adam Roach

References:
- RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Masataka Ohta
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: tom p.
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Denis Ovsienko
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Carsten Bormann
- Re: Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Denis Ovsienko
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Carsten Bormann
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Adam Roach
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Julian Reschke
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Ted Lemon
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Adam Roach
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Ted Lemon
- Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
  - From: Adam Roach

Prev by Date: Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
Next by Date: Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
Previous by thread: Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
Next by thread: Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [IETF Annoucements] [IETF] [IP Storage] [Yosemite News] [Linux SCTP] [Linux Newbies] [Fedora Users]