> Even if RFC 4180 was a standard, which isn’t It is an informal. RFC just says it's not defining the Internet standard. The reason being, and as I'd already p

> Even if RFC 4180 was a standard, which isn’t It is an informal. RFC just says it's not defining the Internet standard. The reason being, and as I'd already pointed out, CSV predates RFC 4180 by 3 decades so what the RFC is really setting out is to describe what those established conventions are and what the MIME type should be. That doesn't mean that what the RFC describes isn't already a convention (it's the same specifications as published by IBM, W3C and many other big hitters). > it would still be a poor choice for archival purposes. I hadn't suggested it was a good choice for archival purposes. You're building a straw man argument there. My point was that there is a conventional standard to CSV and that is very well documented. The issue with CSV is that it's so easy to write a parser that some developers do so without bothering to read any documentation on how CSV should be parsed. That's not the fault of CSV, that's the fault of lazy developers. But I do completely agree that CSV has other faults (which I had also discussed too).