From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 11:30:48 EST
Jungshik Shin <jshin at mailaps dot org> wrote:
>> Note that "UTF-16 little-endian" is not technically the
>> same as "UTF-16LE"; the former implies the presence of a BOM while
>> the latter implies that none is present.)
> Where does this distinction come from?
The sources I checked were UTR #17, "Character Encoding Model," and UAX
#19, "UTF-32." The latter does not specifically talk about UTF-16BE or
UTF-16LE, but uses the same definitions to distinguish UTF-32, UTF-32BE,
and UTF-32LE that we are using here.
Mark Davis can probably point you to other sources as well.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 13 2003 - 12:14:11 EST