- 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>
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?
ht
--
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