RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: D. Starner (
Date: Tue Jan 18 2005 - 15:58:58 CST

  • Next message: Philippe VERDY: "Re: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"

    "Jon Hanna" writes:

    > > In , the use of BOM is
    > > discouraged for use on UNIX platforms. So if endianness may appear to
    > > becomes a problem, it might be better to use UTF-8 externally, and then
    > > convert it to UTF-32/H/L internally in the program.
    > Discouraged or not, it's in the standard, you have to support it.

    That may or may not be true in a standards conformance sense, but
    it's defintely not true in the real world. UTF-8 is a minimal
    change for easy conversion in the Unix world, and nobody is going
    to change the low-level tools to recognize the BOM, especially the
    ones that are used for byte-streams as well as text. Stuff that
    supports a dozen different formats may as well support UTF-8 BOMs,
    but a lot of stuff doesn't and won't.

    Sign-up for Ads Free at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 18 2005 - 16:03:31 CST