- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 15:12:46 +0900
- To: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>, ietf-charsets@iana.org
At 14:56 02/10/04 -0400, Francois Yergeau wrote: >Martin Duerst wrote: > > At 15:35 02/10/03 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > > Receivers MAY recognize and remove the BOM in larger, usually > > > labeled, pieces of text (e.g. MIME entities), if it requires > > > compability with software that generates it. Care should be taken > > > to not remove BOM in data that must be preserved correctly (such as > > > digitally signed data). > > > > I think this is fine. Regards, Martin. > >I have three problems with the above: > >1) It tells receivers what to do, whereas it should (IMHO) tell protocols >what to tell receivers to do. Please feel free to reword, but keep in mind that we should have something that is extremely easy for protocol designers to use. >2) It says 'remove the BOM' whereas 'ignore' is usually a safer course of >action. Please feel free to reword. >3) It talks about 'compability with software that generates it'. As >receivers do not generally know what software generates the stuff they get >(does your browser what editor created the page it's looking at?), this is >meaningless. Furthermore, it seems to me that pegging behaviour on >knowledge of the identity of other software is pretty much at odds with the >idea of Internet standards: all you should need to know to interoperate is >what standard(s) that other software conforms to. I would remove that clause. Recipients MAY, and they will figure the conditions out by themselves. >I'm OK with the last sentence, but such language is already in the draft: >"Note that such stripping might affect an external process at a different >layer (such as a digital signature or a count of the characters) that is >relying on the presence of all characters in the stream. " I think that text should be moved to be close to the normative stuff. Quite a bit of the rest of the bom chapter could actually be shortened/ tightened a bit. Regards, Martin.
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2002 02:17:08 UTC