Re: UTF-8 'BOM'

From: John H. Jenkins (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 13:27:22 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"

    On Jan 20, 2005, at 7:14 AM, Hans Aberg wrote:

    > First of all, I want the BOM requirement to be dropped from UTF-8. Or
    > invent
    > a new variation of UTF-8 which does not have a BOM requirement. (This
    > latter
    > approach seems not prudent, as one should keep down the number of
    > encodings.)

    There is no BOM requirement for UTF-8. It's optional, just as it is
    with UTF-16 (and, for that matter, UTF-32). Check the FAQ,

    Having said that, I must confess to be slightly surprised at the level
    of heat here. Neither Windows nor Unix is evil or non-compliant because
    of their conventions regarding UTF-8 and BOMs. They're just different.
      There are advantages to each way of doing things. 'Nuff said.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 13:28:11 CST