RE: UTF-8 signature in web and email

• From: by way of Martin Duerst <roozbeh@sharif.edu>
• Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:47:37 +0900
• To: www-international@w3.org
• Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20010516104727.03779970@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Richard, Francois M wrote:

 > UTF-8 is considered as a character encoding form as any other...
 > For UTF-16 only, the BOM is recommended.
 > See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/charset.html#h-5.2.1

So BOM for UTF-8 HTML is neither recommended nor discouraged? Does anyone
agree with me that it should be discouraged somewhere?

 > 1- An HTTP "charset" parameter in a "Content-Type" field.
 > 2- A META declaration with "http-equiv" set to "Content-Type" and a value
 > set for "charset".
 > 3- The charset attribute set on an element that designates an external
 > resource.

So a BOM will be ignored anyway?

--roozbeh

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2001 21:48:58 UTC