From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 07:18:19 EST
From: "Mark Davis" <email@example.com>
> That is not sufficient. The first three bytes could represent a real
> character, ZWNBSP or they could be a BOM. The label doesn't tell you.
There are several problems with this supposition -- most notably the fact
that there are cases that specifically claim this is not recommended and
that U+2060 is prefered?
> This is similar to UTF-16 CES vs UTF-16BE CES. In the first case, 0xFE
> represents a BOM, and is not part of the content. In the second case, it
> does *not* represent a BOM -- it represents a ZWNBSP, and must not be
> stripped. The difference here is that the encoding name tells you exactly
> what the situation is.
I do not see this as a realistic scenario. I would argue that if the BOM
matches the encoding scheme, perhaps this was an intentional effort to make
sure that applications which may not understand the higher level protocol
can also see what the encoding scheme is.
But even if we assume that someone has gone to the trouble of calling
something UTF16BE and has 0xFE 0xFF at the beginning of the file. What kind
of content *is* such a code point that this is even worth calling out as a
If the goal is to clear and unambiguous text then the best way would to
simplify ALL of this. It was previously decided to always call it a BOM, why
not stick with that?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 07:52:33 EST