Jungshik Shin <jshin at mailaps dot org> wrote: >> Note that "UTF-16 little-endian" is not technically the >> same as "UTF-16LE"; the former implies the presence of a BOM while >> the latter implies that none is present.) > > Where does this distinction come from?
The sources I checked were UTR #17, "Character Encoding Model," and UAX #19, "UTF-32." The latter does not specifically talk about UTF-16BE or UTF-16LE, but uses the same definitions to distinguish UTF-32, UTF-32BE, and UTF-32LE that we are using here. Mark Davis can probably point you to other sources as well. -Doug Ewell Fullerton, California
