Subject: Re: Draft proposal: Clarify guidance for use of a BOM as a UTF-8 encoding signature
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-11 22:22:46
On 10/10/20 7:58 PM, Alisdair Meredith via SG16 wrote:
> One concern I have, that might lead into rationale for the current
> 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.
Thanks, Alisdair. I think that concern is implicitly addressed by the
suggested resolutions, but perhaps that can be made more clear. One
possibility would be to modify the "protocol designer" guidelines to
address the case where a protocol's default encoding is ASCII based and
to specify that a BOM is only required for UTF-8 text that contains
non-ASCII characters. Would that be helpful?
>> On Oct 10, 2020, at 14:54, Tom Honermann via SG16
>> <sg16_at_[hidden] <mailto: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
>> 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.
>> SG16 mailing list
>> SG16_at_[hidden] <mailto:SG16_at_[hidden]>
SG16 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org