Braden wrote: >As to this change, it looks fine to me as long as these BOMs aren't >leaking >into files that will end up on Unixy platforms; many Unix tools don't like >BOMs.
Hrm, config.xml is something everyone usesŠ http://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#charencoding «Entities encoded in UTF-16 must and entities encoded in UTF-8 may begin with the Byte Order Mark described in ISO/IEC 10646 or Unicode. This is an encoding signature, not part of either the markup or the character data of the XML document. XML processors _MUST_ be able to use this character to differentiate between UTF-8 and UTF-16 encoded documents.» So, given that the file in question is an xml file, and given that per spec all XML processors _MUST_ be able to handle this character in this position, I think that there¹s no reason not to apply it. In general, you aren¹t supposed to `cat` two .xml files together (by the very nature of an xml file having a single root element and a closing tag for it, the concatenation can¹t result in a valid document). Braden: is this sufficient for you to merge it? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.
