From: Gregg Reynolds (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 18:52:34 CST
Rick McGowan wrote:
> Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote...
>>Let's assume that I design a programming language, specify
>>that its source files should be encoded in UTF-8, don't mention
>>anything about BOM, [...] and somebody complains that the
>>compiler doesn't conform to the spec because it doesn't like BOM.
>>Who is right?
> Easy! Don't they teach undergrad novice programmers that the *compiler* is
> always right?
> If said compiler is a commercial product, however, the *customer* is
> always right. So the marketing department would beat up the engineering
> department until they "fixed" the compiler to accept UTF-8 with or without
> leading "EF BB BF".
Bravo! I always thought that Unicode should strike any language
concerning "conformance" and instead let the market decide. Nice to see
you agree. ;) The marketing department decides \x9999 should mean
foobar? Who are we to argue? If the market likes it, it's right.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 18:59:26 CST