> On Sep 26, 2017, at 11:19, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2017-09-26 10:03, John C Klensin wrote: >> ... > ".uf8", rather than relying on in-file indicators that violate >> the relevant standards, don't adequately identify the relevant >> ... > > Precisely what relevant standard is violated by inserting a BOM? The violation is a bit subtle, maybe. All relevant standards have made a point about forbidding, or in certain cases, NOT RECOMMENDING but tolerating BOM pollution. By arguing that RFCs are broken without BOM pollution (exploiting the loopholes created by those certain cases), we are making an end-run around the decisions of the standards. Why is that relevant? Because those people writing pollution-expecting applications (i.e., applications that don’t work unless you pollute) now can point to that decision and say “even the IETF is doing it, so we re right in requiring pollution”. (Which in turn of course will bolster the position of pollution-required etc.) Standards sometime work through more than explicit language. Grüße, Carsten