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

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 18:52:35 CST

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

    On 2005/01/20 19:30, Rick McGowan at wrote:

    >> So, in short, you say that nobody has the need for BOM's.
    >> But still Unicode does require them.
    > You have still not pointed to any text in the standard that requires the
    > use of BOM. Please either point to the text in the standard, or refrain
    > from saying that the standard requires them.

    I have given a reference to posts here where people make that claim. If you
    work with them, you might determine if there really is a UTF-8 process
    requirement of BOM's.

      Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 18:54:34 CST