Andrew wrote: >Had this starred for a while, but just reading now. Thanks.
I have a bunch of other requests which I¹m wondering if people have decided not to consider Š I really wish I understood how the review process worked Š >Looks like your changes just add the BOM unconditionally (not dependent on >whether it was there already). Yeah, I favor unconditionally, but if someone has an argument for doing it conditionally, I could do extra work... > That said, if it doesn't break anything, it probably is more correct to >have a BOM. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
