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

Re: BOMs

From: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:19:54 -0500
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com>, Martin J. Dürst"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, 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: <20131118161954.GB23458@mercury.ccil.org>
Henry S. Thompson scripsit:

> My sense is that you'll see more UTF-16 BOMs than anything else.

I agree.

> 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?

No, because Google transcodes everything into UTF-8 as soon as it starts
to process it.  What I can say (auct. Mark Davis) is that UTF-16 documents
in all formats represent much less than 0.1% of the searchable Web.
By contrast, UTF-8 (including ASCII) amounts to 80% of it.  This reflects
actual rather than declared encodings, and is as of January 2012.

-- 
So they play that [tune] on                     John Cowan
their fascist banjos, eh?                       cowan@ccil.org
        --Great-Souled Sam                      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Received on Monday, 18 November 2013 16:20:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:00 UTC