From: Joseph Boyle (Boyle@siebel.com)
Date: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 13:26:36 EST
These are listed as examples to demonstrate the idea of a configuration file
listing encoding constraints. The fact that each constraint is arguable is a
good reason to make the constraints configurable, and therefore to have
names to distinguish BOM and non-BOM UTF-8.
From: Michael (michka) Kaplan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 10:16 AM
To: Joseph Boyle; Mark Davis; Murray Sargent
Subject: Re: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM
From: "Joseph Boyle" <Boyle@siebel.com>
> Type Encoding Comment
> .txt UTF-8BOM We want plain text files to have BOM to distinguish from
> legacy codepage files
Not really required, but optional -- the perfomance hit of making sure its
valid UTF-8 is pretty minor. But people do open some *huge* text files in
things like notepad....
> .xml UTF-8N Some XML processors may not cope with BOM
Maybe they need to upgrade? Since people often edit the files in notepad,
many files are going to have it. A parser that cannot accept this reality is
not going to make it very long.
> .htm UTF-8 We want HTML to be UTF-8 but will not insist on BOM
Same as text, with the bonus of the possiblity of a higher lever protocol.
It can still go either way.
> .rc Codepage Unfortunately compiler insists on these being codepage.
They can be UTF-16, too (at least on Win32!).
> .swt ASCII Nonlocalizable internal format, must be ASCII.
Haven't run across these -- but note that if its not UTF-8 then it does not
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 13:55:19 EST