Le 7 déc. 2006 à 21:35, Chris Lilley a écrit : > oT> I am not an expert so all my knowledge about UTF-8 with BOM comes > oT> from hearsay and some documentation I have read, and the picture I > oT> was having so far was pointing toward the fact that the BOM for > utf-8 > oT> was not very necessary (it is only a signature, not a mention > of byte > oT> order, isn't it?), > > It is indeed a signature. Its moved therefore from being theoretically > possible but rarely used, to common. Then when such a case is happening :) In this document, > oT> http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-utf8-bom there is a link to http://www.w3.org/International/tests/sec-utf8-signature-1.html Time for interoperability testing and implementation report http://esw.w3.org/topic/QA/Utf8BomInteropReport Feel free to modify the wording of the page or to provide a better way to test. Thanks. -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***Received on Thursday, 7 December 2006 12:56:50 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:09 GMT