- From: Francois Yergeau <FYergeau@alis.com>
- Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 12:43:18 -0400
- To: ietf-charsets@iana.org
McDonald, Ira wrote: > Please look at RFC 2640 "Internationalization of FTP" (July 1999, > Proposed Std status currently), which says: Funny, I just (re-)read this in its entirety today, to avoid covering myself with ridicule. It turns out that RFC 2640 mandates UTF-8 for *pathnames* (which is great), but does exactly nothing for labelling the charset of the payloads. Pathnames are exactly the kind of small 'protocols elements' for which it would make a lot of sense to ban the UTF-8 BOM. FTP payloads are exactly the kind of 'entities' where allowing the BOM is, IMHO, the Right Thing to do. In any event, a ban on BOMs for payloads would be unenforceable and, if somehow made to work, would deny service to those who want to transfer files with BOMs (I do: when I transfer a file from work to home or reverse, I want the BOM if any to be preserved so that the file works the same at both ends). Regards, -- François
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2002 12:44:46 UTC