From: John H. Jenkins (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 27 2008 - 17:27:04 CDT
On May 27, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Kenneth Whistler wrote:
> John Jenkins said:
>> UTF-16, after all, is stateful: if you lose the BOM,
>> things can look very different.
> That is true of the UTF-16 encoding *scheme*. (See TUS 5.0,
> D98, p. 106.) That is because in the UTF-16 encoding scheme,
> an initial BOM is itself a stateful switch for byte order.
> UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE, on the other hand are not stateful.
This is what I get for being careful to say "UTF-16" but not specify
that I meant it specifically in contrast with UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE.
John H. Jenkins
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2008 - 17:29:15 CDT