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

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 14:38:34 CST

  • Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: UTF-8 'BOM'"

    On 2005/01/19 19:59, John H. Jenkins at wrote:

    > On Jan 19, 2005, at 11:18 AM, Oliver Christ wrote:

    >> I agree that "byte order" is misleading in the case of UTF8 but in
    >> practice it's a blessing.

    > This is decidedly a case where one's mileage may vary. I've more than
    > once been bitten by scripts that refuse to run on Mac OS X because the
    > presence of a UTF-8 BOM screws up the Unix '#!' convention.

    It is clear that the use of a BOM in UTF-8 should properly be viewed as a
    file format, and not a character encoding format.

      Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 19 2005 - 14:39:23 CST