- From: McDonald, Ira <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 14:55:36 -0700
- To: 'Patrik Fältström' <paf@cisco.com>, Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
- Cc: ietf-charsets@iana.org, Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Hi, I can't find Martin Duerst's suggested revisions but... This IETF standard should NOT encourage the use of leading BOM in streams of UTF-8 text. The optional use of leading BOM in UTF-8 (as I know Martin said) destroys the crucial property that US-ASCII is a perfect subset of UTF-8 and that US-ASCII can pass _without harm_ through UTF-8 handling software libraries. Specifically, in the printer industry, the optional presence of leading BOM in UTF-8 attribute string values sent over-the-wire in the Internet Printing Protocol/1.1 (IPP/1.1, RFC 2910) has caused bugs, but has _never_ provided any utility. The use of detection of leading BOM by software that guesses the charset encoding of arbitrary text is pernicious and dangerous. UTF-8 never needs a 'byte-order' signature. The concatenation and substring extraction bugs inherent in allowing/encouraging leading BOM in UTF-8 are serious issues. Cheers, - Ira McDonald (co-editor of Printer MIB v2) High North Inc -----Original Message----- From: Patrik Fältström [mailto:paf@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 5:35 PM To: Francois Yergeau Cc: ietf-charsets@iana.org; Bert Wijnen Subject: Re: Comments on draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-00.txt On Thursday, September 19, 2002, at 06:49 AM, Francois Yergeau wrote: > I think I have covered most outstanding comments, with the notable > exception of the BOM issue raised by Martin Dürst. This one is neither > trivial nor uncontroversial, and I have not seen anything ressembling a > consensus, so it remains open (no changes to the draft). [2 weeks have passed again, and I have not seen any comments on this list on this] If anyone agree with Martin changes and text about the BOM issue _IS_ needed, let me know no later from one week from now (i.e. october 9). If I don't see anyone screaming, I declare consensus for this draft, and I'll take over from here. Thanks to all of you for all help! paf
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 17:57:45 UTC