Pete Cordell writes:
> Given the history below, would it be sensible to accept BOMs for UTF-8
> encoding, but not for UTF-16 and UTF-32? In other words, are BOMs needed
> and/or used in the wild for UTF-16 and UTF-32?
>
> Maybe the text can say something like "SHOULD accept BOMs for UTF-8,
> and MAY accept BOMs for UTF-16 and / or UTF-32"?
My sense is that you'll see more UTF-16 BOMs than anything else.
UTF-32 support seems to be waning (at least in the browsers), but
UTF-16 is in pretty widespread use. John, do you think you can fool
google into counting BOMs for us?
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@xxxxxxxxxxxx
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]