----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Kerwin" <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; "tom p." <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:21 PM > 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. Matthew Where in the FTP protocol do I see a Content-Disposition header? I always use FTP to download RFC because it (or at least my version thereof) preserves the metadata whereas my HTTP client (Internet Explorer) always mangles it. Do both sounds like an excellent idea! Tom Petch > Cheers > -- > Matthew Kerwin >