Peter Gummer wrote: > Adam Flinton wrote: > >> Equally if a text editor opens an ADL, assumes UTF-8 & puts on a BOM >> then the Archetype editor dies ... >> > > I assume you mean the Java Archetype Editor, Adam. The Ocean Archetype > Editor accepts ADL files with or without the BOM. > I am pretty sure that recent versions of the Java Parser won't mind the BOM being present. The Java Archetype Editor may still use an old version of the parser?
> There are pros and cons whether tools should put a BOM at the start of > ADL files. > > * As Thomas pointed out, tools that are not Unicode-aware may blow up if > the BOM is present. > > * On the other hand, if you omit the BOM then Unicode-aware tools have a > big problem when they open a file. What encoding should they assume? > Some tools like Windows Notepad seem to be very clever at figuring it > out, but others that I have tried in the past (Visual Studio 2005, Vim > 6.4 and Mac TextEdit) misinterpret BOM-less UTF-8 files as Latin-1. > That's why my assumption till now was that the BOM is optional [but not forbiddedn] for UTF-8 - and also is of some additional value to differentiate between UTF-8 and ISO-8859-1 (as long as you assume that a text doesn't start with ??? - the BOM in ISO, one can safely differentiate between the two without problems) Sebastian
