Kit writes
> I thought we were now also allowing .redif, but cannot find any discussion
> of that. We have a provider in BE (the stm archive) which is producing
> files that are indeed UTF-8 but with no BOM. They are being mangled (see
> 15.rdf). If I download that file, it shows up as proper UTF-8 in my text
> editor. Nevertheless, the content is mangled in both IDEAS and EconPapers.
> Whatsa hoppnin? Do we indeed still require a BOM?
It's late here.
I think the spec says or means to say that if the file is .redif, no
BOM is requride, if the file ends .rdf, a BOM is required.
I then suggested that people working in the Mircosoft wold should be
told to use .rdf, and in the *nix world should be encouraged to use
.redif.
I am not aware of a reaction to my suggestion.
'Christian Zimmermann' writes
> True. I was waiting for Thomas to write a blog post about this as a way to
> introduce the change to the world. He has not done that yet.
The change is introduced to the world with the change in the spec. But
there is still this suggestion that is not been decided on.
--
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
skype:thomaskrichel
David Bourget writes
> Glad to see there's interest to refine the ReDIF format. Let's get
> this mailing list started.
It is now at
http://lists.openlib.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/redif-talk
David and I are owners. I suggest we keep it open for about
a week, then close it. After closure, only the list owners
can subscribe new members.
Cheers,
Thomas Krichel http://openlib.org/home/krichel
RePEc:per:1965-06-05:thomas_krichel
skype: thomaskrichel
