- From: Joseph M. Reagle Jr. <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2000 16:56:47 -0400
- To: "John Boyer" <jboyer@PureEdge.com>
- Cc: "XML DSig" <w3c-ietf-xmldsig@w3.org>
At 12:53 8/22/2000 -0700, John Boyer wrote: >After recently reading thoroughly over the latest DSig spec, I noticed several places where we have qualified UTF-8 with the parenthetic "without byte order mark" or words to that effect. > >I'm still unsure why one would ever need a BOM for UTF-8. I thought the point of UTF-8 was to have a format that could provide lots of Unicode/UCS characters but not be subject to the endian disease. > >Still, I'm sure there is a reason, so could someone please explain it? [0] in respond to [1,2]. It isn't supposed to imply BOM is useful, just that it isn't done, there might be a better way to do this. __ [0] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0058.html Ok, I sprinkled two : UTF-8 /+ (without a byte ordering mark (BOM)) +/ into the Signature spec (6.5.1:minimal C14N) and (7.0: XML Canonicalization and Syntax Constraint Considerations) but it obvioulsy needs to go in xml-c14n. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000AprJun/0287.html "Adding a sentence saying that the UTF-8 produced does not start with a BOM may be a good idea for a clarification." [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-ietf-xmldsig/2000JulSep/0045.html "We should use the name 'UTF-8' in the specification but I hope adding short note about no-BOM to the specification." _________________________________________________________ Joseph Reagle Jr. W3C Policy Analyst mailto:reagle@w3.org IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2000 16:56:54 UTC