W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: UTF-8 and BOM

From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:56:47 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000822165647.0139d8d8@localhost>
To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
Cc: "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 12:53 8/22/2000 -0700, John Boyer wrote:
 >After recently reading thoroughly over the latest DSig spec, I noticed
several places where we have qualified UTF-8 with the parenthetic "without
byte order mark" or words to that effect.
 >  
 >I'm still unsure why one would ever need a BOM for UTF-8.  I thought the
point of UTF-8 was to have a format that could provide lots of Unicode/UCS
characters but not be subject to the endian disease.
 >  
 >Still, I'm sure there is a reason, so could someone please explain it?  

[0] in respond to [1,2]. It isn't supposed to imply BOM is useful, just that
it isn't done, there might be a better way to do this.

__

[0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0058.html
Ok, I sprinkled two :
UTF-8 /+ (without a byte ordering mark (BOM)) +/
into the Signature spec (6.5.1:minimal C14N) and (7.0: XML Canonicalization
and Syntax Constraint Considerations) but it obvioulsy needs to go in
xml-c14n.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000AprJun/0287.html
"Adding a sentence saying that the UTF-8 produced does not start
with a BOM may be a good idea for a clarification." 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0045.html
"We should use the name 'UTF-8' in the specification but I hope adding short
note about no-BOM to the specification."


_________________________________________________________
Joseph Reagle Jr.   
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2000 16:56:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:10:10 GMT