From: Hans Aberg (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:46:12 CST
On 2005/01/20 18:09, Jon Hanna at firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> Please stop repeating this allegation, at least unless you have some
>> proof that Microsoft was using this format before Unicode
> Not likely, apart from the fact that it isn't true, he's getting more
> mileage out of it than the 32bit wchar_t bullschildt. Don't feed the trolls.
It is not my claim, but some posters originally said that the reason for
requiring the BOM in UTF-8 processes a MS text editor that always stamped
BOM's onto UTF-8 files.
If you know the correct answer of these things, why don't you enlighten
these other posters so that this discussion terminates? After all, requiring
BOM's in UTF-8 data is really stupid, so it must be interesting to get to
know what moron introduced it.
As for the 32-bit question, it would have helped if you right away informed
us that the Unicode limit derives from the fact that moribund UTF-16 cannot
take more. It would quickly have terminated that discussion. The limit is
not imposed because of an intelligent assessment of needs, but because of a
silly compatibility issue.
The troll you have mentioned more than once must be those Unicode experts.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:48:47 CST