[SG16] Draft proposal: Clarify guidance for use of a BOM as a UTF-8 encoding signature

[Tom Honermann]

On 10/10/20 7:58 PM, Alisdair Meredith via SG16 wrote:
> One concern I have, that might lead into rationale for the current 
> discouragement,
> is that I would hate to see a best practice that pushes a BOM into 
> ASCII files.
> One of the nice properties of UTF-8 is that a valid ASCII file (still 
> very common) is
> also a valid UTF-8 file.  Changing best practice would encourage 
> updating those
> files to be no longer ASCII.

Thanks, Alisdair.  I think that concern is implicitly addressed by the 
suggested resolutions, but perhaps that can be made more clear.  One 
possibility would be to modify the "protocol designer" guidelines to 
address the case where a protocol's default encoding is ASCII based and 
to specify that a BOM is only required for UTF-8 text that contains 
non-ASCII characters.  Would that be helpful?

Tom.

>
> AlisdairM
>
>> On Oct 10, 2020, at 14:54, Tom Honermann via SG16 
>> <sg16 at lists.isocpp.org <mailto:sg16 at lists.isocpp.org>> 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 
>> <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/2020-June/008713.html> 
>> 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.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>> <Unicode-BOM-guidance.pdf>--
>> SG16 mailing list
>> SG16 at lists.isocpp.org <mailto:SG16 at lists.isocpp.org>
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg16
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20201011/e161386d/attachment.htm>