- 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
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