I feel like this should be mentioned in the help file for [text]. Otherwise, it’d be best if [text] simply swallowed the BOM if it’s detected. That of course then brings up the question whether Pd should replicate an existing BOM when writing? I dunno.
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 1:42 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > From: IOhannes m zmoelnig <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [PD] un-routable output from [text get] > Date: February 7, 2017 at 1:40:40 AM MST > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > > On 2017-02-07 09:24, Liam Goodacre wrote: >> This explanation makes sense, however I am using non ASCII characters in the >> textfile (not the one attached, but the one I'm working on), so I guess that >> I need the BOM to stay there. > > no. > the BOM was just another useless invention. > UTF-8 (unlike UTF-16) is a byte-stream oriented protocol. it is > unconcerned by the notion of byte-order. > > gfmasdr > IOhannes -------- Dan Wilcox @danomatika <http://twitter.com/danomatika> danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
