C++ Logo

SG16

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Draft proposal: Clarify guidance for use of a BOM as a UTF-8 encoding signature
From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdairm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-10 18:58:37


One concern I have, that might lead into rationale for the current discouragement,
is that I would hate to see a best practice that pushes a BOM into ASCII files.
One of the nice properties of UTF-8 is that a valid ASCII file (still very common) is
also a valid UTF-8 file. Changing best practice would encourage updating those
files to be no longer ASCII.

AlisdairM

> On Oct 10, 2020, at 14:54, Tom Honermann via SG16 <sg16_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Attached is a draft proposal for the Unicode standard that intends to clarify the current recommendation regarding use of a BOM in UTF-8 text. This is follow up to discussion on the Unicode mailing list <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2020-June/008713.html> back in June.
>
> Feedback is welcome. I plan to submit <https://www.unicode.org/pending/docsubmit.html> this to the UTC in a week or so pending review feedback.
>
> Tom.
>
> <Unicode-BOM-guidance.pdf>--
> SG16 mailing list
> SG16_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16



SG16 list run by sg16-owner@lists.isocpp.org