• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>,Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 15:41:54 -0700

At 10:00 PM 03/07/01 +0100, Rob Lugt wrote:
>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
>valid.

Actually, I think that the UTF-8 BOM is a deeply stupid idea that
serves no useful purpose in any imaginable universe.  We wouldn't
be thinking about were it not for the fact that MS Notepad happens
to write one for UTF-8 documents.

Given that a widely-deployed piece of software does this, and that
it doesn't seem to be breaking any Unicode rules in so doing, it
does seem reasonable that XML processors should deal with it, and
that the rules get clarified to make it clear this is legal & good.
 -Tim

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: UTF-8 BOM
    • From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
  • Re: UTF-8 BOM
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>
  • Re: UTF-8 BOM
    • From: Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • RE: UTF-8 BOM
    • From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>
  • Re: UTF-8 BOM
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML DOM
• Next by Date: Re: XML DOM
• Previous by thread: Re: UTF-8 BOM
• Next by thread: Re: UTF-8 BOM
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread