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

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 11:47:04 EST

  • Next message: Joseph Boyle: "RE: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"

    From: "Joseph Boyle" <>

    > Yes, it's trivial to check. What's missing is the notation to tell the
    > checker what to check for.

    Sorry, but that is incorrect. If they know its UTF-8, then its either a BOM
    or its not. It is three specific bytes.

    > Yes, this is a good description of the sad state of existing software.
    > Noting that failure to standardize is irritating and unnecessary doesn't
    > make existing software go away.

    None of which is "fixed" by naming it.

    Your suggestion does not solve the problem, to the extent that it is a


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 12:17:10 EST