W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2004

Re: [CSS21] response to issue 115 (and 44)

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:59:07 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ernest Cline <ernestcline@mindspring.com>
Cc: Bert Bos <bert@w3.org>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0402210957580.13400@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004, Ernest Cline wrote:
>
> So is CESU-8 is to be implicitly prohibited from using a BOM,
> unless identified as such by out-of-band info, since that would
> cause it to be treated as UTF-8?  (I could live with that as
> CESU-8 isn't really intended for transmission of data.)

The CESU-8 specification makes it quite clear that the only way a UA
should be able to end up using it is if it has been very explicitly given
as the encoding. A BOM is not, IMHO, explicit.

-- 
Ian Hickson                                      )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
U+1047E                                         /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
http://index.hixie.ch/                         `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 21 February 2004 04:59:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:26 GMT