From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:47:04 EST
From: "Joseph Boyle" <Boyle@siebel.com>
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 12:17:10 EST