Re: (Informational only: UTF-8 BOM and the real life)

From: Steven Atreju <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 11:26:09 +0200

Asmus Freytag <> wrote:

 |On 7/25/2012 2:45 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
 |> . One might even argue that the BOM is useful here, too, since it
 |> immediately signals that there is something wrong, and “” is an
 |> encoding error signature, so to say.

Well, i still see a bug in the Unicode Standard here.
Whereas for the multioctet UTFs there is «The BOM is not
considered part of the content of the text» (Conformance, 3.10,
D98, D101), i cannot find any such clarifying text for it's usage
as a signature. (Even though that kind of usage itself is promoted
at more and more places of the standard, which will remain a
mystery to me.)
Thus--if this terrible thing really has to be swallowed--the standard
should add «The signature is not..», too.

Received on Fri Jul 27 2012 - 04:29:16 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jul 27 2012 - 04:29:17 CDT