Re: So do both [was Re: Should the IETF be condoning, even promoting, BOM pollution?]

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

 





On 27 Sep. 2017 5:39 am, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27/09/2017 06:10, tom p. wrote:
...
> We do have metadata in a filestore.  As has already been pointed out,
> the suffix .txt indicates ASCII and not UTF8 so applications that rely
> on that for genuine plain text will likely fail.  As Brian pointed out,
> sowhat we need now is a new suffix for UTF.

So why don't we, the Internet standards people who believe in rough
consensus and running code, request the RFC Editor (a friend of ours)
to supply two text versions of each RFC, like

https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8187.txt   as today, with BOM if relevant
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8187.ut8   containing pure UTF-8 with no BOM ever

It might just become an Internet meme.

    Brian


It would be prudent to also include a Content-Disposition header with an appropriate 'filename' parameter, since browsers tend to name all downloaded text/plain files as .txt irrespective of the URL.

Not sure if this is bike-shedding or rat-holing.

Cheers
--
Matthew Kerwin 

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