W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > October to December 2003

Re: UTF-8 signature / BOM in CSS

From: <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 20:29:33 -0500
To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@jtcsv.com>
Cc: Etan Wexler <ewexler@stickdog.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-international@w3.org, w3c-css-wg@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031208012933.GG2638@skunk.reutershealth.com>

Mark Davis scripsit:

> The string "UTF-16" names both an encoding form and an encoding scheme. Somewhat
> unfortunate, but it is that way for historical reasons. As an encoding form, it
> is independent of byte ordering. As an encoding scheme, it is defined such that
> an (optional) BOM determines the interpretation of the rest of the bytes, as
> either pairs of big-endian or little-endian bytes.

In the UTF-16 encoding scheme, does the presence of a BOM in the character
stream cause a U+FEFF to be present in the character stream?  XML assumes
it does not.

"What has four pairs of pants, lives            John Cowan
in Philadelphia, and it never rains             http://www.reutershealth.com
but it pours?"                                  jcowan@reutershealth.com
        --Rufus T. Firefly                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Sunday, 7 December 2003 20:18:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:40:48 UTC