On 27 Sep. 2017 6:51 am, "Carsten Bormann" <cabo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> So why don't we, the Internet standards people who believe in roughBecause that sends an even stronger signal that the IETF has given up on UTF-8 being the standard text encoding.
> 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
Stronger than https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6657#section-4 ?
A better way to do this — just add:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8187.txt?and-get-me-a- bom-for-that-because-my- environment-cant-handle-utf8- without
(Possibly slightly abbreviated, as in ?agmabftbmechuw.)
So everybody else can still easily wget/curl the undamaged .txt file.
Grüße, Carsten
That's the same way -- two URLs are two URLs, the exact spelling is paint.
In the background, how does the presentation of file names as URLs interact with the names of files that are rsynced? Is it a 1:1 mapping (are they served from the same place)?
Cheers
--
Matthew Kerwin