[ReDev] rdfintro on IDEAS site

[Christopher Baum]

This still doesn't answer my question.

1) Is .redif as an alternative to .rdf defined anywhere in the accessible
documentation?

2) Can the firm maintaining the stm archive merely rename their properly
encoded UTF-8 files that lack a BOM to .redif, and have them treated
properly in RePEc services? If so, they will not have to modify their
workflow, nor charge the organization they're hired by to create the
templates. They are a *nix shop, btw, but properly argue that BOM is not
required in UTF-8: "The Unicode Standard neither requires nor recommends
the use of the BOM for UTF-8..."

3) If so, how would a provider know that this was a supported alternative?

I don't know why those in the "M$ world" ought to use .rdf (that is, UTF-8
with BOM) rather than .redif. Is there some reason (some particular editor,
for instance) why those who use Windows would find it easier to include
BOMs in files? Most Windows maintainers I exchange messages with have a
hard enough time figuring out how to do UTF-8, let alone UTF-8 with BOM.

Thanks
Kit

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Thomas Krichel <krichel at openlib.org> wrote:

>
>   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
>



-- 
Kit Baum
Professor of Economics and Social Work, Boston College, Chestnut Hill MA,
USA
DIW Research Fellow, Department of Macroeconomics, DIW Berlin, Berlin,
Germany
baum at bc.edu  |  http://ideas.repec.org/e/pba1.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openlib.org/pipermail/redif-dev/attachments/20160819/54470b70/attachment.html>