Re: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM

Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 07:34:29 EST

  • Next message: "Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"

    On 11/02/2002 12:15:54 PM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote:

    >> .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
    >not going to make it very long.

    Ah, now here's an interesting twist. I'm not saying I disagree with
    Michael. I'm just acknowledging my own need for intellectual honesty, and
    realising that sometimes we take opposite sides of an opinion because of
    other factors that we may or may not be conscious of.

    In particular, I'm thinking of a situation about a year and a half ago
    (IIRC) in which Michael (and I and others) were strongly opposed to a
    suggestion that the Unicode Consortium should document a certain variation
    (perversion, some would say) of one of the Unicode encoding forms that a
    certain vendor had implemented in their software. On that occasion,
    Michael (and I and others) were arguing that, just because they had done
    something in their software, that shouldn't mean that the rest of the
    world should be forced to support their encoding form.

    I find it interesting, then, to see Michael saying that, since Notepad
    sticks a BOM-cum-signature at the start of its UTF-8, the rest of the
    world should support it.

    Again, this is just an observation on the particular argument being used,
    but not on the suggestion being made.

    - Peter

    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485
    E-mail: <>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 08:12:41 EST