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

[Tom Honermann]

On 10/13/20 2:32 PM, Hans Åberg wrote:
> There is only a U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE, and if somebody wants to use it to mean something else, that is something Unicode should not worry about.

The Unicode standard already discusses use of U+FEFF as both a BOM and 
as an encoding signature.  If you feel that it should not do so, I think 
that would be a separate proposal.

Tom.

>
>
>> On 13 Oct 2020, at 19:45, Tom Honermann <tom at honermann.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/20 4:57 AM, Hans Åberg wrote:
>>> It would be best if stated that its use is a type of metadata, and such, Unicode has no opinion on its use.
>> I'm interpreting that as an endorsement for the first suggested resolution in the paper.
>>
>> Tom.
>>
>>>
>>>> On 10 Oct 2020, at 20:54, Tom Honermann via Unicode <unicode at unicode.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 back in June.
>>>>
>>>> Feedback is welcome.  I plan to submit this to the UTC in a week or so pending review feedback.
>>>>
>>>> Tom.
>>>>
>>>> <Unicode-BOM-guidance.pdf>
>>