RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email

From: Roozbeh Pournader (
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 09:14:41 EDT

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard, Francois M wrote:

> UTF-8 is considered as a character encoding form as any other...
> For UTF-16 only, the BOM is recommended.
> See

So BOM for UTF-8 HTML is neither recommended nor discouraged? Does anyone
agree with me that it should be discouraged somewhere?

> 1- An HTTP "charset" parameter in a "Content-Type" field.
> 2- A META declaration with "http-equiv" set to "Content-Type" and a value
> set for "charset".
> 3- The charset attribute set on an element that designates an external
> resource.

So a BOM will be ignored anyway?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:17 EDT