Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (qrczak@knm.org.pl)
Date: Fri Jan 21 2005 - 16:48:49 CST

Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Conformance"

Previous message: Jon Hanna: "RE: So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?"
In reply to: Richard T. Gillam: "RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"
Next in thread: Lars Kristan: "RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

"Richard T. Gillam" <rgillam@las-inc.com> writes:

> UTF-8 HAS NO BOM. There is nothing in the Unicode standard mandating or
> even encouraging the use of EF BB BF at the beginning of a UTF-8 file.
> That sequence has no special meaning in UTF-8; it's just a zero-width
> non-breaking space.

Let's assume that I design a programming language, specify that its
source files should be encoded in UTF-8, don't mention anything about
BOM, implement a compiler which happens to fail with a lexing error
when the file begins with a BOM (U+FEFF is not whitespace: its general
category is Cf, not Zs), and somebody complains that the compiler
doesn't conform to the spec because it doesn't like BOM. Who is right?

-- 
   __("<         Marcin Kowalczyk
   \__/       qrczak@knm.org.pl
    ^^     http://qrnik.knm.org.pl/~qrczak/

Next message: Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk: "Re: Conformance"
Previous message: Jon Hanna: "RE: So how about U+D7FD for a NOP then?"
In reply to: Richard T. Gillam: "RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"
Next in thread: Lars Kristan: "RE: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 21 2005 - 16:52:32 CST