Philippe Verdy wrote:
It would break if the only place where to place a BOM is just the
start of a file. But as I propose, we allow BOMs to occur anywhere to
specify which encoding to use to decode what follows each one, even
shell scripts would work (you could place the BOM on a comment line
I can’t access to unicode.org.
Is there a problem with the website?
Mahesh,
Thank you. I like this line of discussion than the constant effort to
condemn me for abstract crimes. I have not seen any standard whose
conditions stand in the way of proper implementation of Singhala on the
computer. There, my challenge stands 1. to show where I hurt Singhala by
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Leif Halvard Silli
xn--mlform-...@xn--mlform-iua.no wrote:
Naena Guru, Tue, 10 Jul 2012 01:40:19 -0500:
HTML5 assumes UTF-8 as the character set if you do not declare one
explicitly. My current pages are in HTML 4.
There is in principle no difference
Steven Atreju wrote:
If Unicode *defines* that the so-called BOM is in fact a Unicode-
indicating tag that MUST be present,
But Unicode does not define that.
I know that, in Germany, many, many small libraries become closed
because there is not enough money available to keep up with the
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Naena Guru naenag...@gmail.com wrote:
There, my challenge stands 1. to show where I hurt Singhala by
romanizing. 2. to show how romanized Singhala violates any standard in what
specific way.
3. to show that romanized Singhala is inferior to Unicode Singhala in
To all concerned: Please accept our apologies for problems with the mail
list, website etc.
Our provider reports experiencing a large-scale distributed denial of
service attack that has crippled their data center connectivity since
yesterday (Saturday).
We do not have an estimated time when
My error. Sorry, Doug.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
Unicode character database goes from zero to some very big number. There
are no holes in it to define character sets for somebody's fancy. Well,
Doug Ewell did one for Esparanto expanding fuþorc.
Hey, Philippe,
Your input is much appreciated. So, in a nutshell, I don't have to worry.
One of these days I need to crunch down (minify) the CSS and JavaScript
pages. I left them readily readable so that techs like you could easily
read them in place in any browser without having to pretty
On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Doug Ewell d...@ewellic.org wrote:
We've been hearing the story about hashbang for many, many years now, and I
still don't understand why the following logic hasn't been made part of the
low-level I/O process in such environments:
When reading a text file that
Stephan Stiller wrote:
With that in mind, there is value in documenting, however briefly,
that reading FF FE 00 00 is by itself technically ambiguous.
I have seen this documented many times, though I can't say for sure that
it was in official Unicode literature.
Even though you can never
David Starner wrote:
In the environment that UTF-8 was developed for, a BOM is a nuisance;
a BOM will stop the shell from properly interpreting a hashbang, and
other existing programs will lose the BOM, duplicate the BOM, and
scatter BOMs throughout files. Given the number of text-like file
I have seen this documented many times, though I can't say for sure
that it was in official Unicode literature.
Excellent, so let's have someone state whether it's in the official
Unicode literature.
And independent of whether it is or not, I know that some mention of the
content of this
13 matches
Mail list logo
