On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
- Again there, shouldn't we be given unicode codepoints for that (as
it'll be a unicode string)?
Not sure what you mean.
This is just me being incredibly dumb. Ignore it.
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
The draft says:
"A leading U+FEFF BYTE ORDER MARK (BOM) must be dropped if present."
That's reasonable for UTF-8 when the encoding has been established by
other means.
However, when the encoding is UTF-16LE or UTF-16BE (i.e. supposed
to be
signatureless), do we really want to drop the BOM silently?
Shouldn't it
count as a character that is in error?
Do the UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE specs make a leading BOM an error?
If yes, then we don't have to say anything, it's already an error.
If not, what's the advantage of complaining about the BOM in this
case?
I don't see anything making a BOM illegal in UTF-16LE/UTF-16BE, in
fact, the only mention I find of it with regards to either in Unicode
5.0 is "In UTF-16(BE|LE), an initial byte sequence <(FE FF|FF FE)> is
interpreted as U+FEFF zero width no-break space."
I suppose the rational given for removing it is the section that
follows D101 (e.g., "When converting between different encoding
schemes…UTF-8 byte sequences is not recommended by the Unicode
Standard.").
--
Geoffrey Sneddon
<http://gsnedders.com/>
