From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 19:28:50 EST
► “Eppur si muove” ◄
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael (michka) Kaplan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Mark Davis" <email@example.com>; "Unicode Mailing List"
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 13:02
Subject: Re: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM
> From: "Mark Davis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Ironic that for the purpose of dealing with THREE bytes that so many bytes
> are being wasted. :-)
> > Little probability that right double quote would appear at the start of
> > document either. Doesn't mean that you are free to delete it (*and* say
> > you are not modifying the contents).
> Interesting strawman there, Mark -- but there is a huge difference there.
> But even if we leave in the notion of it as a character and just deprecate
> its usage and people ignore that, then we are talking about a ZERO WIDTH
> BREAK SPACE. This character has the job of:
> 1) being invisible
> 2) not breaking text with it
> So even if it were in there, who cares? I mean, can anyone explain why it
> would make a difference?
> The one thing that no one has ever come up with is a reasonable case where
> it would be at the beginning of the document *yet* it was not a BOM.
> So we have a clear semantic for it at the beginning of a file -- its a
> If there is a higher level protocol as well and the protocol and the BOM
> both match, then that is great! Considering how much redundancy there is
> the Unicode standard about some definitions, a redundant marker for a file
> seems a very trivial issue.
> If there is a higher level protocol as well and they do not match, then we
> are in fantasy land bizarro world, inventing edge cases because we have
> nothing better to do. :-) But for the sake of argument, lets pretend its
> real scenario -- in which case we treat it the same way as if your higher
> level protocol claims its ISO-8859-1 and the BOM says its UTF-32. Its an
> Problem solved!
> > 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
> > a non-character), then we are in much better shape. This was, as a
> > fact proposed for 3.2, but not approved. If we did that for 4.0, then
> > would be much less reason to distinguish UTF-8 'withBOM' from UTF-8
> > 'withoutBOM'.
> There is no reason to worry about this case and no need to delete
> This is a ZERO WIDTH NO BREAK SPACE we are talking about. The burden is on
> the people who think this is a scenario to bring proof that anyone is
> anything as unrealistic as this.
> There is an easy, clear, and unambigous plan that can be used here which
> will always work. For ones lets not opt to complicate it without reason.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 20:02:57 EST