From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:07:47 EST
From: "Joseph Boyle" <Boyle@siebel.com>
> Software currently under development could use the identifiers for
> whether to require or emit BOM, like the file requirements checker I have
> write, and ICU/uconv.
Lets separate that into the two issuse it represents:
EMITTING: They could simply choose globally whether to emit the BOM or not.
If they wanted to get "fancy" they could have a command line option which
said whether to emit the bytes or not. But that is optional.
INCOMING TEXT: Trivial to simply chek. I say (once again) its THERE BYTES.
If hey are there then there is a BOM. Simple.
> The inability to update to one standard all possible consuming software
> might encounter (or for that matter human customers' opinions) is
> why producing and checking software has to handle both possibilities.
But the "both possibilities" are trivial adn its by no means dificult to do.
Having a good program that refuses to do a little work to handle three bytes
is like someone who runs a 100 mile marathon and then refuses to cross the
finish line because the line is yellor instead of white.
> What would you mean by "the right thing" as far as emitting BOM? Should
> conversion programs only allow output of non-BOM? (or with-BOM?) Or should
> they take the specification in an argument separate from the charset name?
> As said before this unnecessarily requires extra logic.
Already answered --- they can make a global decision, like notepad or other
programs do. Especially if the progammer finds the idea of setting it as a
huge hardship, they can skip that work and simply choose whether they want
it or not....
I plead with you -- keep it SIMPLE. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:53:13 EST