From: Joseph Boyle (Boyle@siebel.com)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:46:01 EST
I haven't encountered UTF-32, SCSU, UTF-7, or BOCU-1 as transfer encodings.
If so, they potentially have the same BOM/signature question, unless all
uses are established as BOM or agnostic, or non-BOM and agnostic. I do not
expect it to come up much as the formats/protocols that insist on non-BOM
generally also insist on UTF-8 and/or ASCII compatibility, and because the
newer encodings are only likely to be implemented by new software.
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:34 AM
To: Unicode Mailing List
Cc: Joseph Boyle; 'Michael (michka) Kaplan'
Subject: Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM
Joseph Boyle <Boyle at siebel dot com> wrote:
> Software currently under development could use the identifiers for
> choosing whether to require or emit BOM, like the file requirements
> checker I have to write, and ICU/uconv.
Alternatively, software could use a completely separate flag to indicate
whether a BOM is to be written or not. That is what SC UniPad does, for
instance. Any type of Unicode file -- UTF-32, UTF-16, UTF-8, SCSU, even
UTF-7 -- can have a BOM or not.
Encoding identifiers that have been overloaded to denote the presence or
absence of BOM, such as "UTF-16" to indicate there is a BOM and "UTF-16LE"
or "-BE" to indicate there isn't, are often misused and may not be as useful
as you think.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 12:17:34 EST