On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The question was specifically about ECMA-404, not ECMA-252. It would be great
to hear from TC39 whether or not ECMA-404 allows or disallows it.
ECMA=nnn is the correct designation for Ecma standards. When speaking about
the organization
On Nov 14, 2013, at 7:33 AM, John Cowan wrote:
Per contra, ECMA-404 refers only to text(ual content). The BOM is
meaningful when transforming byte sequences into code point sequences,
but ECMA-404 deals in the latter only. So it is the furthest thing
from surprising that it makes no
On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
no hat
On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) jhild...@cisco.com
wrote:
We would also need to change section 8.1 according to the mechanism that
was previously proposed:
00 00 00 xx UTF-32BE
00 xx ?? xx UTF-16BE
On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)
jhild...@cisco.com wrote:
that all software implementations
which receive the un-prefixed text will not generate parse errors.
perhaps:
...all conformant software ...
Mark https://google.com/+MarkDavis
*— Il meglio è l’inimico
On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
On 11/13/13 3:47 PM, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote:
It's not clear that 404 disallows it, since 404 is defined in terms of
characters, and a BOM is not a character but an out-of-band signal.
However, for example, a
5 matches
Mail list logo
