From: Arcane Jill (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 09:15:09 CST
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
Behalf Of Hans Aberg
Sent: 20 January 2005 14:14
To: Peter Kirk
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8
> As a standard, Unicode will have to fight for recognition.
Mebbe, but it doesn't have a lot of competition. As a girl, I used to imagine
that one day there would be one single super-ASCII character set, with all the
characters in the world in it. (I was a sad kid). Now we have one, and it
doesn't seem to have any rivals. So what's the choice? Unicode versus Latin1?
I'll take the one with a gazillion characters in it, thank you very much.
> Just as I, and others will, oppose the UTF-8 BOM requirement for good
Are we all clear about what the BOM requirement actually /is/, by the way?
Unicode does NOT require that all UTF-8 text files must begin with a BOM; it
only requires that conformant processes can recognize and handle the BOM
character /if/ it should be found.
> You are drawing this analogue too far, because it is fairly easy to fix the
> \r\n problem, whereas the BOM problem runs deeper. The latter changes the
> very paradigm for file representation.
I don't see why. What is the difference between discarding U+000Ds and
discarding U+FEFFs ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 09:16:14 CST