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

From: Doug Ewell <>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 10:50:07 -0600

Steven Atreju wrote:

> 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.

There really isn't as much difference between using U+FEFF "as a byte
order mark" and using it "as a signature" as this makes it seem. The
definitions you quote have to do with whether U+FEFF is treated as a
BOM/signature or as a zero-width no-break space.

> No, the real issue is that the programmers are duds.
> Or they were unsure about it all...
> Anyway, i've told them they were duds, and as i didn't get any
> response sofar, i was right.

As a programmer, I can attest that we are no more receptive to being
called "duds" than any other professionals. Constructive suggestions
focused on the end product, instead of the competence of the person,
might get a response.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | @DougEwell ­ 
Received on Fri Jul 27 2012 - 11:56:12 CDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jul 27 2012 - 11:56:14 CDT