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

From: Gregg Reynolds (
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 18:52:34 CST

  • Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Conformance"

    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.


    > Rick

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 18:59:26 CST