W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > July 2010

i18n Polyglot Markup/BOM+UTF8 (3rd issue)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:56:18 +0400
To: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Cc: public-html@w3.org, Eliot Graff <eliotgra@microsoft.com>, public-i18n-core@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100716005618416363.6b04ce44@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Richard Ishida, Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:40:24 +0100:

> FWIW, the i18n group keeps track of comments on your doc at 
> http://www.w3.org/International/reviews/1007-polyglot/

This is comment to some of the rd issue/bugs on that page:

	3rd issue:
		]]  This could be read "use utf-8 with the appropriate BOM or UTF-16 
with the appropriate BOM", but a utf-8 bom (or signature) is not 
strictly necessary, and some would argue that it may cause problems, 
and it's use should be discouraged here. [[
	Comment:	
		For the first issue, if it is possible to read the Polyglot Markup 
spec as if BOM is _needed_ together with UTF-8, then of course that 
detail 
should be fixed. 
		For the latter issue, then the HTML5 spec allows BOM, and has no 
warnings against it. Thus, unless HTML5 proper as well advice against 
use of BOM, then the Polyglot Markup spec must not warn against BOM 
either. (Unless there are any issues with BOM for XML parsers, then XML 
cannot be used to justify any warning against use of BOM.) 

		Based on Sam's message [1] and follow-up(s), I'd like to add: I think 
the only other option we have is to forbid the BOM together with UTF-8. 
This based on the view that Polyglot Markup seeks to be a "maximum 
compatibility spec". And your comments to the effect that there are 
issues with the use of BOM.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/4C3F56AB.7030105@intertwingly.net
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 15 July 2010 21:00:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:10 GMT