Subject: Re: Draft proposal: Clarify guidance for use of a BOM as a UTF-8 encoding signature
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-15 17:32:39
On 10/14/20 8:25 AM, Alisdair Meredith wrote:
> A minor note for clarity.
> I would better understand the goal of this paper if there were an
> early sentence indicating
> whether the target audience of the advice is:
> 1) document authors
> 2) document processing tools
> 3) both equally
> The advice seems geared strongly towards group (2), but we probably
> want to send a
> message to group (1) as well.
Thanks Alisdair. I'll add more of an introduction. The suggested
resolutions do address (1) as well, but one has to read until the end to
see that. Good suggestion.
>> 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