Asmus Freytag <[email protected]> wrote: |On 7/25/2012 2:45 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: |> . One might even argue that the BOM is useful here, too, since it |> immediately signals that there is something wrong, and “” is an |> encoding error signature, so to say. |> | |+8 | |A./
Well, i still see a bug in the Unicode Standard here. Whereas for the multioctet UTFs there is «The BOM is not considered part of the content of the text» (Conformance, 3.10, D98, D101), i cannot find any such clarifying text for it's usage as a signature. (Even though that kind of usage itself is promoted at more and more places of the standard, which will remain a mystery to me.) Thus--if this terrible thing really has to be swallowed--the standard should add «The signature is not..», too. Thanks, Steven
