- From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>
- Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 01:10:22 -0700
- To: Harald Alvestrand <Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no>, Chris Newman <Chris.Newman@INNOSOFT.COM>, "Martin J. Duerst" <duerst@w3.org>
- Cc: MURATA Makoto <murata@apsdc.ksp.fujixerox.co.jp>, ietf-charsets@ISI.EDU, murata@fxis.fujixerox.co.jp, Tatsuo_Kobayashi@justsystem.co.jp
At 09:10 AM 5/25/98 +0200, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >I think it's wrong to say anything about how people who insist on >doing the Wrong Thing should behave; I was trying to craft language >that said what the Right Thing is, and hint at how to tackle the >Wrong Thing. Yes. >What about adding: > >"Note: There is no way to 100% reliably detect little-endian data that does >not use the BOM." Good. Still, there has the whiff of 'dark secret' about it that might be confusing to newcomers. >Just telling people who try to deal with the mess that they are getting >ever deeper into a mess..... No, I think there's a clear way - somehow - to write this. You know, they say that if it's too hard to document, maybe there's something wrong with it. Perhaps the key is to ALWAYS send a BOM. Then the language becomes exceedingly clear and simple. - Dan --Boundary (ID uEbHHWxWEwCKT9wM3evJ5w)
Received on Monday, 25 May 1998 16:27:43 UTC