Re: BOM-free tests [was Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]

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

To: Doug Royer <douglasroyer@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: BOM-free tests [was Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:17:29 -0400
Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <84058ea5-c1b6-ea79-f055-16eb9ab6959c@gmail.com>
References: <09b0ed8b-c47a-83c3-9174-cce990bdb145@rfc-editor.org> <c53bcaeb-f660-538e-f1f9-3aa213a77c3c@gmx.de> <68C17F98-15AB-4AA5-BB4B-B46D53C51585@fugue.com> <83c37ab2-51f7-9a94-2b86-2b4fbe1cd1d6@nostrum.com> <39EBEA6F-69B7-4B9A-9A72-761766628E1D@fugue.com> <019e429c-5332-b0c7-b895-08e64bae17cd@gmx.de> <A5DCDBE7-ED9B-4393-BAB2-F139C4139AA7@fugue.com> <8ccf8c64-a77a-3213-27ed-96691e77f827@gmx.de> <63813DDD-E2F2-43A6-A22C-CE55E6B9ED70@fugue.com> <689ea779-5a1a-e1b6-c7b1-307b5b3a0c52@gmx.de> <1682DE05-95A2-488F-9875-8EE5FB8C9943@fugue.com> <c76510f0-bf03-1393-9b35-082439cf466b@nostrum.com> <CA+9kkMDRfr4Vge5VGArdhq2wEioa4BizdGLOvjObBtn3XZEuhg@mail.gmail.com> <c846d071-c2f0-c5c3-d7de-e246b79e7cca@nostrum.com> <C38DD5C1-4B67-4C22-9BF8-FBC67AD1B90E@fugue.com> <51d7731c-caf0-c3d1-1f94-8095ea62bed0@nostrum.com> <1818E75B-86D4-4B90-A2A6-D0CD128034A0@fugue.com> <d0f9ce6a-b7ba-6205-c542-3f07c4e56b49@nostrum.com> <5c9f1bb1-36b7-d134-a0a1-d0adac4669cf@gmail.com> <84058ea5-c1b6-ea79-f055-16eb9ab6959c@gmail.com>

This appears to be the default on Ubuntu—I didn't have to do anything to get cat to work in the terminal, for example.

References:
- RFC Series publishes first RFC with non-ASCII characters
  - From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)
- 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: 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: 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: 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 Hardie
- 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
- 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
- BOM-free tests [was Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
  - From: Brian E Carpenter
- Re: BOM-free tests [was Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]
  - From: Doug Royer

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: BOM-free tests [was 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]