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

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

 



On 9/18/17 15:39, Ted Lemon wrote:
The paragraph I quoted simply says that UTF-8 BOM isn't useful or recommended.   So it's agreeing with Carsten, and I guess with me.   If we disagree with the consortium on this, that's okay, but we ought to have a really good reason for disagreeing.


I think "putting it in is demonstrably necessary for proper rendering in a lot of real-world applications" is a Really Good Reason.

So far, in all the arguments *against* BOMs, I have not yet seen a concrete "here is what will break with BOMs (but which works fine without them)" argument.  I understand -- and, to some degree, sympathize with -- the arguments that putting BOMs in UTF-8 documents is distasteful in principle. But until someone actually posts a step-by-step set of "steps to reproduce the problem," these concerns remain theoretical [1].

In this case, I would give real problems significantly more weight when balanced against imagined ones.

/a


____
[1] Based on your query about clipboard behavior, I have no doubt that you're trying -- and, if this is your best avenue of investigation, almost certainly failing -- to come up with such an example. In my experience, OSes tend to handle these kinds of things quite gracefully.




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