Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Thu Jan 20 2005 - 19:50:55 CST

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

    On 2005/01/20 22:35, Peter Constable at wrote:

    >> UNIX'es will strip out any BOM requirement anyway, that seems clear, because
    >> it does not fit into their file and streams model.

    > So, then, it sounds like whatever problems that existed are resolved,
    > and we can put this thread behind us.

    Right. On the UNIX platforms, it is probably a non-issue, since it will be
    too cumbersome for them to honor any BOM requirements anyway. If Unicode has
    some such BOM requirements, it only means that the Unicode standard is not
    strictly followed.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 20 2005 - 19:52:49 CST