Re: Requesting a revision of RFC3023

> By Unicode signature, I'm guessing you mean the BOM? That problem 
> seems to have been easily dealt with by simply deciding to allow it 
> in UTF-8. It doesn't appear to have caused any problems in practice 
> today.

In the case of XML, I think you are right.  In general, however, see

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-yergeau-rfc2279bis-05.txt

> I don't know what you problems you refer to with "representation of 
> non-BMP characters". UTF-8 precisely specifies how these characters 
> are represented. There's no issue here. Did you mean something else?

Quite a few implementations use 6 bytes (rather than 4 bytes) to represent 
non-BMP characters.  See

http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr26/

-- 
MURATA Makoto <[email protected]>