RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email

From: Roozbeh Pournader (roozbeh@sharif.edu)
Date: Tue May 15 2001 - 09:14:41 EDT

Next message: Misha Wolf: "Ancient writing found in Turkmenistan"
Previous message: Richard, Francois M: "RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email"
In reply to: Richard, Francois M: "RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email"
Next in thread: Misha Wolf: "Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard, Francois M wrote:

> UTF-8 is considered as a character encoding form as any other...
> For UTF-16 only, the BOM is recommended.
> See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/charset.html#h-5.2.1

So BOM for UTF-8 HTML is neither recommended nor discouraged? Does anyone
agree with me that it should be discouraged somewhere?

> 1- An HTTP "charset" parameter in a "Content-Type" field.
> 2- A META declaration with "http-equiv" set to "Content-Type" and a value
> set for "charset".
> 3- The charset attribute set on an element that designates an external
> resource.

So a BOM will be ignored anyway?

--roozbeh

Next message: Misha Wolf: "Ancient writing found in Turkmenistan"
Previous message: Richard, Francois M: "RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email"
In reply to: Richard, Francois M: "RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email"
Next in thread: Misha Wolf: "Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:17 EDT