Another myth, e.g. in wikipedia, is that Unicode warns against the utf-8 bom,
see the footnote
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8#cite_note-27
Leif
------- Opprinnelig melding -------
Fra: Jukka K. Korpela <[email protected]>
Til: [email protected]
Sendt: 13/7/'12, 15:31
2012-07-13 16:12, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
The kind of BOM intolerance I know about in user agents is that some
text browsers and IE5 for Mac (abandoned) "convert" the BOM into a
(typically empty) line a the start of the <body> element.
I wonder if there is any evidence of browsers currently in use that have
problems with BOM. I suppose such browsers existed, though I can't be
sure. In any cases, for several years I haven't seen any descriptions of
real-life observations, but there are rumors and warnings, and people
get disturbed. Even reputable sites have instructions against using BOM:
"When the BOM is used in web pages or editors for UTF-8 encoded content
it can sometimes introduce blank spaces or short sequences of
strange-looking characters (such as ). For this reason, it is usually
best for interoperability to omit the BOM, when given a choice, for
UTF-8 content."
http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-byte-order-mark
In reality, BOM surely helps rather than hurts, especially when a
document is saved locally and HTTP headers are thereby lost. Authoring
tools may have problems with it (and then again, some tools have
problems with UTF-8 files that _lack_ BOM).
Yucca
