• From: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@a...>
• To: 'David Brownell' <david-b@p...>,Richard Tobin <richard@c...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001 13:08:37 -0700

> From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...]

<snip/>

> I guess I'm thinking that a UTF-8 BOM would be a "new feature" that's
> an error today.  Hence it fits with the other 
> backwards-problematic stuff
> in Blueberry ... though it's a "new feature" that's encoding-specific.

Except that a UTF-8 BOM isn't really a new feature; it's just one that all
too many implementors overlook.

The XML 1.0 specification includes a non-normative appendix regarding
autodetection of character encodings. It quite explicitly mentions the UTF-8
BOM as one of the things a processor should look for
(http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-guessing-no-ext-info).
Unlike the issue with Blueberry, this isn't something new that's been added
to Unicode since XML 1.0. It's just a failure of current implementations.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: UTF-8 BOM
    • From: Rob Lugt <roblugt@e...>

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