- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 12:03:49 +0000
- To: "Pete Cordell" <petejson@codalogic.com>
- Cc: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, "JSON WG" <json@ietf.org>, <www-tag@w3.org>
Pete Cordell writes:
> ----- Original Message From: "Henry S. Thompson"
>
>> I agree that XML is a useful point of comparison, in particular
>> because it too does not allow a BOM as part of an XML document, but
>> rather treats it as an aspect of packaging/transport external to the
>> XML document, which seems to me to be the kind of approach to BOMs the
>> JSON WG might consider.
>
>
> If I remember rightly, XML demotes notes about encoding detection and
> BOMs to a rather lowly (informational?) appendix. Maybe that's
> something JSON should do in the interests of interoperability (AKA
> avoidance of confusion -
> which there seems to be a lot of).
There is indeed a non-normative appendix [1] which gives
implementation advice. But there is also a normative section [2]
which, _inter alia_ makes a BOM a requirement in certain
circumstances.
ht
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-guessing
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#charencoding
--
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 Wednesday, 20 November 2013 12:04:39 UTC