W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: UTF-8 signature in web and email

From: Keld Jørn Simonsen <keld@dkuug.dk>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 09:57:03 +0200
To: duerst@w3.org
Cc: www-international@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010516095703.B18646@rap.rap.dk>
For UTF-8 there is no need to have a BOM, as there is only one
way of serializing octets in UTF-8. There is no little-endian
or big-endian. A BOM is superfluous and will be ignored.

Kind regards
Keld

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 10:47:37AM +0900, Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard, Francois M wrote:
> 
>  > UTF-8 is considered as a character encoding form as any other...
>  > For UTF-16 only, the BOM is recommended.
>  > See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/charset.html#h-5.2.1
> 
> So BOM for UTF-8 HTML is neither recommended nor discouraged? Does anyone
> agree with me that it should be discouraged somewhere?
> 
>  > 1- An HTTP "charset" parameter in a "Content-Type" field.
>  > 2- A META declaration with "http-equiv" set to "Content-Type" and a value
>  > set for "charset".
>  > 3- The charset attribute set on an element that designates an external
>  > resource.
> 
> So a BOM will be ignored anyway?
> 
> --roozbeh
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2001 03:57:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:16:56 GMT