- From: Asmus Freytag <asmusf@ix.netcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:25:49 -0800
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- CC: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, www International <www-international@w3.org>
On 12/20/2012 3:53 AM, Leif Halvard Silli wrote: > How about being consistent about writing > > byte order mark > > and not > > byte-order mark > > since the former is the official form? And not to forget, BYTE ORDER MARK, when indicating the formal identifier. A./ > Leif Halvard Silli > > Richard Ishida, Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:16:25 +0000: >> On 18/12/2012 22:57, Asmus Freytag wrote: >>> The text says >>> >>> >>> What is a byte-order mark? >>> >>> > <http://www.w3.org/International/questions/new/qa-byte-order-mark-new.en.php#bomwhat> >>> At the beginning of a page that uses a Unicode >>> >>> > <http://www.w3.org/International/articles/definitions-characters/Overview#unicode> >>> character encoding >>> >>> > <http://www.w3.org/International/articles/definitions-characters/Overview#charsets> >>> you may find some bytes that represent the Unicode code point U+FEFF >>> ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE (ZWNBSP). This combination of bytes is >>> known as a byte-order mark (BOM). >>> >>> The BOM, when correctly used, is invisible. >>> >>> For a while now, there's been a formal name alias defined for the Byte >>> order mark, Actually two, if you count the abbreviation. (See: >>> http://www.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/NameAliases.txt) >>> >>> FEFF;BYTE ORDER MARK;alternate >>> FEFF;BOM;abbreviation >>> >>> Section 4.8 of the Unicode Standard explains that these aliases are >>> designed (like the original character names) to be used as identifiers >>> (e.g. in specifications, regular expressions etc.). >>> >>> With the introduction of U+2060 WORD JOINER, there's no longer a need to >>> ever use FEFF for its ZWNSP effect, so from that point on, and with the >>> availability of a formal alias, the name ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE just >>> represents baggage. >>> >>> I recommend that the original name, if mentioned, be relegated to the >>> status of a historical footnote. >> Sounds good to me. >> >> RI >> >> >>> A./ >
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 15:26:34 UTC