RE: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM - pragmatic

From: Kent Karlsson (
Date: Wed Nov 06 2002 - 11:55:25 EST

  • Next message: Markus Scherer: "Re: Names for UTF-8 with and without BOM - pragmatic"

    > True, UTF-16 files do need a signature.

    Eh, no! "UTF-16BE" and "UTF-16LE" files (or whatever kind of text
    data element) do not have any signature/BOM. Not even files (somehow)
    labelled "UTF-16" need have a signature/BOM, without a BOM they are
    then the same as if it was labelled "UTF-16BE". (Formally, XML
    "requires" BOM for UTF-16 XML documents, but then goes on
    examplifying that it is not needed for XML documents...)

    I do agree, however, that the idea of having a BOM/signature at
    the beginning of a file (or other text data element) is a bad one.

            /Kent K

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 06 2002 - 12:49:56 EST