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

From: Joseph Boyle (Boyle@siebel.com)
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 12:30:46 EST

Next message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"

Previous message: Otto Stolz: "Re: In defense of Plane 14 language tags (long)"
Maybe in reply to: Joseph Boyle: "PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Next in thread: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Reply: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

>> 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.

No, the notation to say "BOM required (report any files without BOM)", "BOM
not allowed (report any files with BOM)", or "BOM optional (only report
files if they are not valid UTF-8 at all)", for a given file type.

Next message: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Previous message: Otto Stolz: "Re: In defense of Plane 14 language tags (long)"
Maybe in reply to: Joseph Boyle: "PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Next in thread: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
Reply: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"
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 : Mon Nov 04 2002 - 13:14:35 EST