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

From: David Starner (
Date: Thu Nov 07 2002 - 15:14:20 EST

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: A .notdef glyph"

    On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 09:47:43AM -0800, Markus Scherer wrote:
    > The fact is that Windows uses UTF-8 and UTF-16 plain text files with
    > signatures (BOMs) very simply, gracefully, and successfully. It has applied
    > what I called the "pragmatic" approach here for about 10 years. It just
    > works.

    It just works in an environment where relatively few documents are plain
    text, and that doesn’t use pipes of text as universal glue. C has been
    described as a (C)haracter processing language; whether or not that’s
    accurate, Awk and Perl certainly are; these are all Unix programming
    languages, and at the heart of what Unix is. The simple Unix program has
    a stream of text coming in and a stream of text going out, whereas the
    simple Windows program has a window. What works for Windows may very
    well not work for Unix.

    David Starner -
    Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom--
    A field where a thousand corpses lie. 
      -- Stephen Crane, "War is Kind"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 16:06:55 EST