From: Roozbeh Pournader (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 23:50:44 EST
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 email@example.com wrote:
> The lack of the BOM in the 'white space' section of the specs may
> just be an oversight.
I like the idea. This looks practical to me. Ammending HTML 4 to consider
> Since plain text files can have any kind of file extension, and the
> *.TXT extension historically covers many different code pages, some
> people do find the BOM helpful. [...]
And some people find it annoying and dangerous. A BOM-ed UTF-8 file breaks
the Unix text file model to some degree. I can post a link if anyone's
> I've found the BOM handy, but could probably live without it on
> any of my web pages. Especially if it's going to display as a
> Euro symbol on some systems...
I'll call it irony. It's some certain version of MS Internet Explorer it's
breaking on Mac, and I've also seen it break MS FrontPage 2000 on a
Windows 2000 machine (FrontPage had not seen the UTF-8 declaration in the
HTML file itself yet, and it saw the three non-ASCII bytes, and
automatically treated the file as CP1252), the same machine that was used
to edit the HTML as a text file (in Notepad of course).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 00:41:02 EST