[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: UTF-8 BOM
- From: Rob Lugt <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 22:00:20 +0100
Michael Brennan wrote:
> The XML 1.0 specification includes a non-normative appendix regarding
> autodetection of character encodings. It quite explicitly mentions the
> BOM as one of the things a processor should look for
> Unlike the issue with Blueberry, this isn't something new that's been
> to Unicode since XML 1.0. It's just a failure of current implementations.
I totally agree with you Michael.
I don't know which implementations haven't taken account of the (very
useful) Appendix F, but the ElCel Technology C++ Toolkit (from which the XML
Validator is built) certainly recognises and accepts a UTF-8 BOM as the
Appendix suggests it should.
Perhaps the current confusion arises from the non-normative nature of the
Appendix. However, I take it as a clear indication that a UTF-8 BOM is
- RE: UTF-8 BOM
- From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>