Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")

From: John Cowan (jcowan@reutershealth.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 14:34:26 EDT

Previous message: Jungshik Shin: "Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
In reply to: Doug Ewell: "Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
Next in thread: jarkko.hietaniemi@nokia.com: "RE: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> The Unix and Linux world is very
> opposed to the use of BOM in plain-text files, and if they feel that way
> about UTF-8 they probably feel the same about UTF-16.

I doubt it. The trouble with BOMizing is that it makes ASCII not a
subset of UTF-8, but ASCII cannot be a subset of UTF-16 anyhow.
(I mean at the byte level, of course.)

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_

Previous message: Jungshik Shin: "Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
In reply to: Doug Ewell: "Re: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
Next in thread: jarkko.hietaniemi@nokia.com: "RE: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN")"
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 : Wed Apr 24 2002 - 15:41:04 EDT