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

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

 



On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:55, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@xxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Please cite *specifically* what you think is relevant with respect to the use of BOMs in plain text files.

That’s all already been said in the thread, but to repeat, with links:

STD0063 section 6:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3629#section-6
"Use of a BOM is neither required nor recommended for UTF-8":
http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode10.0.0/ch02.pdf

And RFC 5198, section 2, item 5:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5198#section-2

Of course, BOM-pollution apologists will find enough rope in these documents to hang themselves.
That is really the problem here: the tendency to weasel around decisions in standards.
(Or to make them in the first place.  UCS-2-BE vs. UCS-2-LE all over again.)

Grüße, Carsten





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