RE: UTF-8 BOM Nonsense

From: Michael Kaplan (Trigeminal Inc.) (
Date: Thu Jun 22 2000 - 15:40:03 EDT

I agree Gary.

Windows 2000 Notepad, however, does not agree and writes one.

Since Notepad in prior versions of Windows was in fact the defacto standard
for HTML editor (<g>), clearly it is a program to be reckoned with. People
should be aware of the fact that there are going to MANY files out there
that are UTF-8 and do have a BOM.

I do not believe that this will require it to be added to a standard, and
this is a non-standard usage, but life is about dealing with things as they
are (and this is how they are!).


> ----------
> From: Gary L. Wade[]
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 9:08 AM
> To: Unicode List
> Subject: UTF-8 BOM Nonsense
> Please!
> After hundreds of e-mails on this topic, let it die!
> The BOM is only useful with UTF-16 or UCS-4 characters.
> There is no such thing as byte ordering when each character is a byte or
> a multibyte sequence with a well-documented ordering denoting how to
> interpret this! For further reference, turn to page 20 in the Unicode
> 3.0 book and let us get back to more important things, such as how to
> represent the price of tea in China! ;-)
> --
> Gary L. Wade
> Product Development Consultant
> DesiSoft Systems | Voice: 214-642-6883
> 9619 E. Valley Ranch Parkway | Fax: 972-506-7478
> Suite 2125 | E-Mail:
> Irving, TX 75063 |

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