Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 10:23:15 EST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: Header Reply-To"

    From: "Joseph Boyle" <>

    > Thanks for the dozens of responses discussing consumers' behavior on UTF-8
    > BOM. This is actually not what I'm concerned with, as I have to take it as
    > given that there is both software that wants UTF-8 BOM and software that
    > doesn't want it.
    > Could we evaluate the need for separate identifiers for producing or
    > describing UTF-8 with and without BOM, or viable alternatives to use in
    > control input to a file encoding converter program or encoding checker
    > program.


    How on earth could a separate identier be USED unless software were updated
    to use it? And if they are updating to do this, why couldn't they just fix
    it anyway to do the right thing?

    There is no need here for separate identifiers, as they would not solve the
    problem, to the extent that a problem actually exists (I have yet to see
    proof that there is such a problem?).


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:02:00 EST