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

From: Tex Texin (
Date: Mon Nov 04 2002 - 23:36:42 EST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: PRODUCING and DESCRIBING UTF-8 with and without BOM"

    Joseph Boyle wrote:
    > Yes, the software business is largely about dealing with the BADLY WRITTEN,
    > the TRIVIAL, and the BRAIN-DEAD. Your point?

    I see we are still working on naming utf-8 formats with and without the
    I find these quite acceptable, assuming you mean:

    utf8-badly-written- bom may or may not be there, we dont know.
    utf8-trivial - never has a bom
    utf8-brain-dead - always has a bom.

    Yes, works fine.
    I would like to rename notepad too, while we are at it. Let's name it
    for always having a bom.

    I think the naming conventions apply a subtle pressure on programmers to
    converge towards a single format as well.
    Afterall who wants to announce they are working with a badly-written of
    brain-dead file format when they could be working with a trival one.

    This approach might even fix lf/cr if applied there.

    Line endings:

    badly-written, brain-dead (you pick lf or lf/cr I don't care.)

    trivial: Unicode line-separator


    Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898
    Xen Master                
    Making e-Business Work Around the World

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 00:20:56 EST