- 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
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 UTC