Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Rick McGowan (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 10:34:52 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: UTF-8 'BOM'"

    Hans Aberg wrote:

    > It is hard to make UNIX processes becoming Unicode Conformant Processes
    > when the BOM requirement is present.

    Hmmm... I don't recall that the Unicode Standard ever specifies that the
    Byte Order Mark is *required* to be used anywhere for any purpose. Can you
    point me to the place in the standard where this is stated?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 10:35:32 CST