+ Ben.

Thank you, Henri! This is very helpful!

Ben, the context here is whether we’re ok with producers of the dependency format you specified producing a UTF-8 BOM. It looks like we should be ok to allow them to (optionally) do so given that both of the specs below allow consumers to remove one.

Tom.

> On Aug 15, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 5:16 AM Tom Honermann <tom_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> - Are we ok with allowing a BOM (JSON doesn't permit one)?
>
> Consuming JSON from a byte source in the Web Platform only supports
> UTF-8 but removes the BOM if there is one. There is no corresponding
> authoring conformance requirement in the Infra Standard, but the
> practical effect is that the BOM does not fail to parse but doesn't
> signal anything.
>
> https://infra.spec.whatwg.org/#parse-json-from-bytes
>
> The IETF wording requires producers to use UTF-8 without a BOM but
> allows consumers to remove the BOM if it's there, so the Infra
> Standard language and the IETF RFC are compatible on this point.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8259#section-8.1
>
> (Apologies if this distinction between producer and consumer
> conformance requirements was already made in the meeting.)
>
> --
> Henri Sivonen
> hsivonen_at_[hidden]
> https://hsivonen.fi/
> _______________________________________________
> SG16 Unicode mailing list
> Unicode_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/unicode