W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > November 2013

Re: BOMs

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:11:01 +0000
To: "Pete Cordell" <petejson@codalogic.com>
Cc: "\"\"Martin J. Dürst""" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, "IETF Discussion" <ietf@ietf.org>, "JSON WG" <json@ietf.org>, "Anne van Kesteren" <annevk@annevk.nl>, <www-tag@w3.org>, "es-discuss" <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
Message-ID: <f5bk3g6ufqy.fsf@troutbeck.inf.ed.ac.uk>
Pete Cordell writes:

> Given the history below, would it be sensible to accept BOMs for UTF-8
> encoding, but not for UTF-16 and UTF-32?  In other words, are BOMs needed
> and/or used in the wild for UTF-16 and UTF-32?
> Maybe the text can say something like "SHOULD accept BOMs for UTF-8,
> and MAY accept BOMs for UTF-16 and / or UTF-32"?

My sense is that you'll see more UTF-16 BOMs than anything else.
UTF-32 support seems to be waning (at least in the browsers), but
UTF-16 is in pretty widespread use.  John, do you think you can fool
google into counting BOMs for us?

       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 11:12:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:56:59 UTC