- From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@INNOSOFT.COM>
- Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:04:23 -0700 (PDT)
- To: erik@netscape.com
- Cc: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>, MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
> I don't have a copy of ISO 10646, but if I'm not mistaken, the BOM has a > different official name, something like "zero width no-break space". The official name in Unicode 2.0 is "ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE". This is a change from Unicode 1.0, where the official name was "BYTE ORDER MARK" with "BOM" as an allowed alias. > I agree with Dan that the BOM should not be mandatory for big endian. We > should probably use the normal IETF (RFC) words like "MAY", "SHOULD" or > whatever they are. I agree as well. Ned --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Friday, 22 May 1998 11:09:50 UTC