Re: Subject: Re: 32'nd bit & UTF-8

From: Hans Aberg (haberg@math.su.se)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2005 - 17:51:30 CST

  • Next message: Eric Muller: "Re: Forms for invisible ZWJ (and ZWNJ)"

    At 21:09 +0100 2005/01/19, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
    >> On the very contrary. It's most helpful to determine a text file's
    >> encoding. Without the UTF8 BOM it's hard to tell whether a file is
    >> encoded in some ISO or whatever encoding/codepage or is already UTF8.
    >
    >The problem with BOM in UTF8 is that it must be specially handled by
    >all applications. It effectively turns UTF-8 into a stateful encoding
    >where the beginning of a "text stream" must be treated specially.
    >World would be simpler if UTF-8 BOM was banned.
    >
    >Fortunately I have never met a Unix program which used a UTF-8 BOM,
    >so I can mostly ignore the issue, except that text files coming from
    >Windows may have that annoying thing at the beginning which must be
    >stripped.

    The main point is that BOM will not be specially treated in the UNIX world,
    regardless what Unicode says. So I guess MS does not want its text files to
    be read in the UNIX world. Unicode has made the mistake of favoring a
    special platform over all the others.

      Hans Aberg



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 19 2005 - 17:53:25 CST