Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:46:12 CST

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

    On 2005/01/20 18:09, Jon Hanna at wrote:

    >> Please stop repeating this allegation, at least unless you have some
    >> proof that Microsoft was using this format before Unicode
    >> standardised
    >> it.
    > 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.

      Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:48:47 CST