Re: UTF-8 'BOM'

From: Arcane Jill (arcanejill@ramonsky.com)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 07:42:54 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: UTF-8 'BOM'"

    I'm not revisionist, just ignorant. I didn't know that then; now I do. Thanks
    for the info.
    Jill

    PS. Hans - see what I mean about my making a fool of myself? It happens. :-)

    -----Original Message-----
    From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org]On
    Behalf Of gpw@uniserve.com
    Sent: 20 January 2005 13:07
    To: Unicode
    Subject: Re: UTF-8 'BOM'

    Quoting Arcane Jill <arcanejill@ramonsky.com>:

    > I enjoy slagging off Microsoft as much as anyone, but this is really out of
    > place here. Microsoft did not invent the BOM. Rather, they correctly
    > implemented the Unicode Standard. If the Unicode Standard were different in
    > this regard, I'm sure that MS text files would follow suit.

    This is slightly revisionist. Long, long ago there were only big-endian
    encoding schemes with the BOM available to help detect problems. Microsoft
    insisted on writing datafiles on Intel platforms in a little-endian format.
    Once this practice was entrenched, the standard renamed the old defined
    practice as big-endian, documented the little-endian version and created a
    third with the BOM at the beginning to let people cope with finding either.

    Geoffrey



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 07:43:46 CST