Re: UTF-8 signature / BOM in CSS

Richard Ishida wrote to <>, 
<>, and <> on 2 
December 2003 in "RE: UTF-8 signature / BOM in CSS" 

> I wonder whether CSS can introduce a change to CSS2.1 at this stage to
> clarify that the BOM - particularly any UTF-8 signature - should not be
> considered part of the following text.

I'd like to see such a revision made.

CSS specifications should mandate a preparation phase for CSS 
consumption. In this phase, a CSS engine would strip an initial BOM, if 
present, and strip all noncharacters. After this phase, a clean stream 
of Unicode characters gets passed to the tokenizer; parsing proceeds as 
specified in the grammar.

By the way, what UTF-8 signatures exist besides U+FEFF?

Etan Wexler.
(Sorry about the character munging in my original message. And sorry 
about using my unsubscribed address, thus splitting the thread. I'm 
reconnecting with www-style.)

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 18:46:12 UTC