Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (michka@trigeminal.com)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:47:04 EST

Next message: Joseph Boyle: "RE: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"

Previous message: Doug Ewell: "[OT] Re: `` ", ` '"
Maybe in reply to: Joseph Boyle: "PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Next in thread: Joseph Boyle: "RE: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

> Yes, it's trivial to check. What's missing is the notation to tell the
> checker what to check for.

Sorry, but that is incorrect. If they know its UTF-8, then its either a BOM
or its not. It is three specific bytes.

> Yes, this is a good description of the sad state of existing software.
> Noting that failure to standardize is irritating and unnecessary doesn't
> make existing software go away.

None of which is "fixed" by naming it.

Your suggestion does not solve the problem, to the extent that it is a
problem?

MichKa

Next message: Joseph Boyle: "RE: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Previous message: Doug Ewell: "[OT] Re: `` ", ` '"
Maybe in reply to: Joseph Boyle: "PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Next in thread: Joseph Boyle: "RE: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 12:17:10 EST