W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2003

Re: UTF-8 signature / BOM in CSS

From: François Yergeau <francois@yergeau.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 21:16:53 -0500 (EST)
Message-id: <3FD3DEFF.1080605@yergeau.com>
To: ernestcline@mindspring.com
Cc: www-style@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>

Ernest Cline a écrit  :
> Making stuff that was acceptable earlier
> unacceptable should only be done when there is a compelling
> reason to do so.  Other than a theological debate over whether it is
> a character, I see no reason to do so, and that reason is not compelling
> to me.

Nor to me.  But a much stronger reason for wanting U+FEFF excluded from 
identifiers is that it is now deprecated in Unicode, because of the 
ambiguity of its role as a BOM or a ZWNBSP.  Unicode has introduced 
U+2060 to play the latter role and recommends to use it exclusively. 
That's about as much a Good Idea as equating the BOM and ZWNBSP was a 
Bad Idea, and it would be nice if CSS could take heed.


Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 05:15:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:10 UTC