Re: UTF-8 BOM Nonsense

• Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: UTF-8N?"
• Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: UTF-8N?"
• Maybe in reply to: Gary L. Wade: "UTF-8 BOM Nonsense"
• Next in thread: Michael Kaplan (Trigeminal Inc.): "RE: UTF-8 BOM Nonsense"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

"Gary L. Wade" wrote:

> The BOM is only useful with UTF-16 or UCS-4 characters.

It's only useful as a mark of byte order. There are others who want to
use it as a charset signature, and there is a Well-Known OS that insists
on doing so.

Attempting to discourage the use of BOMful UTF-8 in interchange is
going to be about as successful as discouraging the use of CP 1252 in
interchange, and for the same reason.

-- 
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

• Next message: Kenneth Whistler: "Re: UTF-8N?"
• Previous message: John Cowan: "Re: UTF-8N?"
• Maybe in reply to: Gary L. Wade: "UTF-8 BOM Nonsense"
• Next in thread: Michael Kaplan (Trigeminal Inc.): "RE: UTF-8 BOM Nonsense"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
• Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:04 EDT