Re: Variations of UTF-16

From: David Starner (
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 22:58:07 EDT

On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Jonathan Coxhead wrote:
> But a BOM in every UTF-16 plain text file would make this completely
> hopeless. If we ever think we might want to do UNIX-style text processing on
> UTF-16, we have to resist that!

So the Unix people, because they might someday want to use UTF-16 plain
text (why? may as well go to UTF-32), should object to somebody else
using a BOM on a file format they actually use?

David Starner -
"It's not a habit; it's cool; I feel alive. 
If you don't have it you're on the other side." 
- K's Choice (probably referring to the Internet)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 23:58:30 EDT