RE: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM

From: Peter_Constable@sil.org
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 07:34:31 EST

  • Next message: Peter_Constable@sil.org: "Re: ct, fj and blackletter ligatures"

    On 11/02/2002 11:59:24 AM "Joseph Boyle" wrote:

    >The first time I thought of UTF-8Y it sounded too flippant, but actually
    it
    >is fairly self-explanatory if UTF-8 is taken as a given, and has the
    virtue
    >of being short.

    UTF-8Y (and UTF-8J) is not at all intuitive. "UTF-8-yuk"? The better
    counterpart IMO to UTF-8N[o BOM], if we need these labels at all, would be
    UTF-8B[OM].

    - Peter

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Constable

    Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
    7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
    Tel: +1 972 708 7485
    E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 08:12:12 EST