Tex Texin scripsit: > I didn't think the XML standard allowed for utf-8 files to have a BOM.
This capability was never actually excluded, and was added by erratum (and force-majeure, when it became clear that BOMful UTF-8 was going to start becoming common). XML files are intended to be plain text, and if a large source of plain text insists on a BOM, so be it. > The standard is quite clear about requiring 0xFEFF for utf-16. > I would have thought a proper parser would reject a non-utf-16 file > beginning with something other than "<". If by "<" you mean the *character* "<", then yes. If you mean the *byte* 0x3C, then no: well-formed XML files can begin with any of 0x00 (UTF-32), 0x3C (ASCII-compatible), 0x4C (EBCDIC), 0xEF (UTF-8 with BOM), 0xFE (UTF-16 in BE order), or 0xFF (UTF-16 in LE order). In principle they could begin with some other byte: 0x2B in UTF-7, e.g. > (The fact that notepad puts it there should be irrelevant.) Actual practice is never quite irrelevant. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.reutershealth.com "Mr. Lane, if you ever wish anything that I can do, all you will have to do will be to send me a telegram asking and it will be done." "Mr. Hearst, if you ever get a telegram from me asking you to do anything, you can put the telegram down as a forgery."
