- From: Kenneth Whistler <kenw@sybase.com>
- Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 19:35:02 -0700 (PDT)
- To: imcdonald@sharplabs.com
- Cc: ietf-charsets@iana.org
Ian, > > I think we need to carefully distinguish that while Unicode 3.2 > and ISO 10646:2000 allow (and seem to encourage) leading BOM > in UTF-8, The UTC does not encourage a leading BOM in UTF-8, but I agree that the wording to date has not been very clear. The Unicode 4.0 text, when it is finally published, will take a much clearer stance, indicating that a leading BOM in UTF-8 is "neither required nor recommended", but that its presence is not considered non-conformant for UTF-8, because of considerations of round-trip conversions between UTF-8 and UTF-16 or UTF-32, where the presence of a BOM can make more sense. > an IETF 'standards track' RFC that describes UTF-8 > usage _for_Internet_protocols_ should preferably say: > > 1) Historically, leading BOM usage in the UTF-8 encoding > has been allowed by ISO 10646. > 2) All Internet protocols SHOULD NOT specify or encourage > leading BOM usage in the UTF-8 encoding. I agree that this is the general stance that the RFC should take. --Ken > > (the above wording obviously can be improved - Martin probably > said it better already - if I could only find his note...) >
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 22:36:04 UTC