On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard, Francois M wrote: > UTF-8 is considered as a character encoding form as any other... > For UTF-16 only, the BOM is recommended. > See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/charset.html#h-5.2.1 So BOM for UTF-8 HTML is neither recommended nor discouraged? Does anyone agree with me that it should be discouraged somewhere? > 1- An HTTP "charset" parameter in a "Content-Type" field. > 2- A META declaration with "http-equiv" set to "Content-Type" and a value > set for "charset". > 3- The charset attribute set on an element that designates an external > resource. So a BOM will be ignored anyway? --roozbeh
- UTF-8 signature in web and email Roozbeh Pournader
- RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email Richard, Francois M
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Roozbeh Pournader
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Misha Wolf
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Martin Duerst
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Michael \(michka\) Kaplan
- RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email Marco Cimarosti
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Mark Davis
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Bill Kurmey
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email DougEwell2
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Martin Duerst
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Edward Cherlin
- Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email Michael \(michka\) Kaplan