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

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

 



On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:03 AM, John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> wrote:


I agree with John on this. ,txt is broken and is going to remain so.

To understand how broken it is, my main use for notepad is to generate one off batch files. Notepad throws the BOM in without asking and command.exe chokes.

I always go to a HTML version if I can, even if it is only caveman format because it is more likely to work printed out.


The RFC format does not concern me much because I spend most of my time reading drafts that look like this:


​Yes, I know that is not RFC format. It has colour and the table of contents works and several other things that have been fixed. ​But it is a document I can send to my engineers and not be ashamed of the format. The plaintext RFC format will always be unacceptable with or without a BOM.


​Lets just move to the proposed HTML format as fast as possible and then we can set about fixing that.



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