From: John Burger (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 23:54:53 EST
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> The lack of the BOM in the 'white space' section of the specs may
> just be an oversight.
As one of the authors of that particular passage, I can attest that we
considered fairly carefully which of ISO10646's many space characters
should count as whitespace in that particular sense. (For historic
background, Ideographic Space (U+3000) was briefly on the list.) I
remember that we were rather conservative, and added to the standard
ASCII space characters only those whose semantics was clearly that of
word separators and the like. Only ZWSP seemed to fit the bill.
> From: "Doug Ewell" <email@example.com>
> I can't argue with the excellent gumshoe work Roozbeh did. But it does
> seem peculiar, as Michka observed, that ZWSP should be a legal white
> space character for this purpose but ZWNBSP should not;
Again, since we aimed mainly to define characters that separated words,
ZWNBSP seemed completely inappropriate to include on the list. I
suspect that we did not really consider the character's use as a BOM
for that discussion.
- John Burger
The MITRE Corporation
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 00:38:24 EST