Re: UTF-8 'BOM'

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 18:52:38 CST

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

    On 2005/01/20 20:27, John H. Jenkins at wrote:

    > 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,
    > <>.

    The heat is over a requirement that the BOM to be ignored by UTF-8
    "processes", at their "beginning". If there is no such requirement, there
    are no problems. If there is such a requirement, it is a major headache on
    UNIX platforms.

      Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 18:54:49 CST