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

From: Peter Kirk (peterkirk@qaya.org)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 14:37:30 CST

  • Next message: Peter Kirk: "Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"

    On 19/01/2005 18:38, Hans Aberg wrote:

    >On 2005/01/19 01:56, Peter Kirk at peterkirk@qaya.org 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. ...
    >

    It's not easy to change a program with an installed base in the hundreds
    of millions worldwide! But I suppose it could be done as part of a
    Windows service pack etc.

    But that assumes that everyone would agree that this change would be a
    good idea. Oliver doesn't, and he makes a good point.

    >... 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.
    >
    >
    >
    I thought everyone was required to ignore BOM's, as soon as the encoding
    has been determined.

    -- 
    Peter Kirk
    peter@qaya.org (personal)
    peterkirk@qaya.org (work)
    http://www.qaya.org/
    -- 
    No virus found in this outgoing message.
    Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
    Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.0 - Release Date: 17/01/2005
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 19 2005 - 16:15:15 CST