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

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 12:38:13 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"

    On 2005/01/19 01:56, Peter Kirk at wrote:

    > On 19/01/2005 00:09, Hans Aberg wrote:
    >> UTF-8 BOM's seem pointless.

    > Maybe. Nevertheless, they exist, not only as a result of unintelligent
    > conversion from UTF-16 or UTF-32 to UTF-8, but also because at least one
    > UTF-8 editor, Notepad on Windows 2000 (and XP?), always emits a BOM at
    > the start of a UTF-8 file.

    Well, it seems easier to change that single editor, then. Or write a program
    that removes it at need. Note however that most tools will just act on byte
    streams. If there is a generated lexer involved, if correctly written, it
    will generate an error for anything that is not correct. On the BOM
    question, some fellows simply wants the BOM's to be ignored.

      Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 19 2005 - 12:39:28 CST