W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-charsets@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: draft-hoffman-utf16-01.txt available

From: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 13:08:18 +0900
To: ietf-charsets@iana.org
Message-id: <199902020408.AA03366@murata.apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>
Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
> But it's pretty clear that not everyone would follow it because some UTF-16
> editing software does BOMs, other doesn't. 

Are there many text editors that do not use the BOM for UTF-16?  I am 
just asking.

In this I-D, the BOM is a part of the text body rather than an artifact 
for encoding.  If this I-D becomes an RFC, XML is allowed to say that 
the BOM is mandatory, in my opinion.  In fact, the BOM is already mandatory 
in XML 1.0.  Since XML is pervasive, the BOM is likely to become almost 
compulsory.

Cheers,

Makoto
 
Fuji Xerox Information Systems
 
Tel: +81-44-812-7230   Fax: +81-44-812-7231
E-mail: murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp
Received on Monday, 1 February 1999 23:10:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 June 2006 15:10:50 GMT