- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 19:51:14 +0100
- To: www-international@w3.org
- Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
Leif Halvard Silli, Thu, 22 Nov 2012 03:33:57 +0100: > (II.) Positivity! The page tells much about disadvantages of the BOM. > Could you please also describe some advantages to including the BOM? > Speaking about the UTF-8 BOM, then those advantages are > > a) It is an UTF-8 _signature_ - thus it prevents the page from > defaulting to to - well - the default encoding, > b) It has effect in both XML/XHTML and HTML. > c) It is small/short, > d) It is very safe: Per Anne's Encoding spec - as well as implemented > in IE (I have not tested released IE10), But now I have tested (via the before mentioned neterenderer.de), and it seems like the IE10 team for some reason went away from the behaviour of IE6,IE7,IE8 and IE9. Meaning that the BOM currently does not win over HTTP, in IE10. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2012 18:51:44 UTC