Re: Conformance (was UTF, BOM, etc)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Sat Jan 22 2005 - 12:49:00 CST

  • Next message: Philippe VERDY: "Re: leading BOMs in encoding schemes (was: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8)"

    RE: Conformance (was UTF, BOM, etc)
    Lars Kristan wrote:

    > Peter Kirk wrote:
    >> This is interesting speculation. But with any code page there are
    >> bytes or combinations of bytes which are illegal or undefined in that
    >> code page.
    > In most SBCS encodings, there are none.

    Amazing. Simply amazing.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 22 2005 - 12:52:05 CST