On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Tony Mechelynck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 20/05/08 09:11, Nikolai Weibull wrote: >> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Tony Mechelynck >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>> Note, that you probably do not want to use BOM with UTF-8. >>>> See http://unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#29 (Q: Can a UTF-8 data stream >>>> contain the BOM character (in UTF-8 form)? If yes, then can I still >>>> assume the remaining UTF-8 bytes are in big-endian order?) >> >>> The BOM can also be used in UTF-8, not to determine endianness (which is >>> not relevant for UTF-8 -- one could argue that UTF-8 is always >>> big-endian) but to distinguish UTF-8 from other encodings including >>> UTF-16 and UTF-32. >> >> How can you argue that? UTF-8 is neither big-endian nor >> little-endian. It's just a sequence of 8-bit bytes. > > Exactly. Some people (including you, apparently) say that endianness is > not a property of bytes but of words (or doublewords, quadwords, etc.) > when written to disk. Since UTF-8 doesn't use 2^n-word data items (with > n in the set {0, 1, 2, ...}), those people would say that it is neither > big-endian nor little-endian. According to a different definition of > endianness (used, apparently, by Ilya Bobir), any sequence of two or > more bytes representing a single integer (and for instance a Unicode > codepoint number) can be big-endian (if the bits of higher weight come > first) or little-endian (if it's the bits of lower weight). According to > this latter definition, UTF-8 is always big-endian.
Ilya Bobir is simply linking to the FAQ, which doesn't mention any such definition. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
