MK> What we are trying to establish is the exact meaning that UNICODE
MK> ought to have - that is, if it can have one at all.
In the Unix-like world, the term ``UTF-8'' has been used quite
consistently, and most documentation avoids using Unicode for a disk
format (using it for the consortium, er., the Consortium, the
character repertoire and, when useful, for the coded character set).
The Unix-like public is used to thinking of UTF-8 as the format in
which Unicode text is saved on disk, and ``UTF-8 (Unicode)'' or
perhaps ``Unicode (UTF-8)'' should be the preferred user-interface
item.
MK> Are there, in fact, many circumstances in which it is necessary
MK> for an end user to create files that do *not* have a BOM at the
MK> beginning?
You should never use either BOMs or UTF-16 on Unix-like systems; using
either will break too much of the system.
Juliusz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Thu Feb 14 2002 - 10:34:51 EST