Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:47:04 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: UTF-8 'BOM'"

    On 2005/01/20 17:34, Rick McGowan at 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?

    Several poster have cliamed that, most recently Arcane Jill. Check with
    them. There is supposed to be a difference between a UTF-8 encoding not
    requiring a BOM and a UTF-8 process requiring it.

      Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 14:50:33 CST