Re: BOMs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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]




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]