2012-07-13 22:37, David Starner wrote:
> Wikipedia says "The Unicode standard recommends against the BOM for
> UTF-8." and refers to page 30 of the Unicode Standard, version 6.0,
> that says "Use of a BOM is neither required nor recommended for
> UTF-8..." Calling it a myth seems bizarre.
“Not recommended” is distinct from “recommends against”. But this
particular statement in the standard might be seen as a mild reflection
of the myth. A more appropriate formulation would be “Use of a BOM is
not required for BOM, but may be used as a signature that indicates,
with practical certainty, that data is UTF-8 encoded.”
The myth is that something bad happens when you use BOM at the start of
an HTML document on the WWW. To prove that it’s not a myth, you would
need to provide evidence of real problems caused by BOM in currently
used web browsers.
Yucca
Received on Fri Jul 13 2012 - 15:33:24 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Fri Jul 13 2012 - 15:33:25 CDT