Gregory P. Smith <greg <at> krypto.org> writes: > Given the existing brokenness I personally think that removing the BOM > insertion (because it is incorrect) in 2.7 and 3.2 is fine if you cannot find > a way to make it correct in 2.7 and 3.2 without breaking existing APIs.
Thanks for the feedback. > could a private method to create the byte string not be added and used in 2.7 > and 3.2 that correctly add the BOM? The problem is that given a format string, the code would not know where to insert the BOM. According to the RFC, it's supposed to go just before the unstructured message part, but that's format-string and hence application-dependent. So some new API will need to be exposed, though I haven't thought through exactly what that will be (for example, it could be a new place-holder for the BOM in the format-string, or some new public methods which are meant to be overridden and so not private). Regards, Vinay Sajip _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
