From: Doug Ewell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 16:20:36 EST
Mark Davis <mark dot davis at jtcsv dot com> wrote:
> Little probability that right double quote would appear at the start
> of a document either. Doesn't mean that you are free to delete it
> (*and* say that you are not modifying the contents).
True, but right double quote:
(a) has a visible glyph with a well-defined human-readable meaning,
(b) isn't defined by Unicode as having a text-processing influence on
adjoining characters (leaving the question wide open of what to do when
there are fewer than two adjoining characters),
(c) doesn't have a second meaning as a signature that under certain
conditions can be stripped.
> I agree that when the UTC decides that a BOM is *only* to be used as a
> signature, and that it would be ok to delete it anywhere in a document
> (like a non-character), then we are in much better shape. This was, as
> a matter of fact proposed for 3.2, but not approved. If we did that
> for 4.0, then there would be much less reason to distinguish UTF-8
> 'withBOM' from UTF-8 'withoutBOM'.
Every one of us will be grateful when that day comes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 17:01:08 EST