.
Roozbeh Pournader wrote,
> No, just let's recommend explicitly against BOM in UTF-8 instead of
> politely telling that it's OK to put a BOM only because somebody liked the
> idea and released some software doing that.
>
> Well, should we CC William? ;)
I wish that the copy had gone to Willia
.
Roozbeh Pournader wrote,
> According to the specs, it's illegal, and it doesn't hurt to fix it. So
> why shouldn't one?
The lack of the BOM in the 'white space' section of the specs may
just be an oversight.
Since plain text files can have any kind of file extension, and the
*.TXT extension h
At 19:10 -0800 2003-02-15, Michael \(michka\) Kaplan wrote:±±
Of course if I had a penny for every byte that has been used
discussing these three bytes sometimes found at the beginning of a
UTF-8 document, I would not be working this weekend; I'd be
somewhere really warm and sunny.
My point w
Well, since the whole web could be full of such pages, fixing the
browser would be a better long term strategy in the short term,
the best tool for quick fixes to HTML pages *is* notepad, which is
what is being blamed for causing the problem. :-)
Has anyone worked to be positive that this is t
Given all of the below statements, which are true, I see no reason to
suggest that this be made actively illegal unless one is hoping to
break a lot of clients.
Luckily even if the HTML standard ever agreed with Roozbeh and leaned
this way, actual browsers would not want to break their customers s
>Has anyone worked to be positive that this is the cause of the errant
>euro? With two simple UTF-8 encoded page (one with and one without the
>BOM) ? I still have a hard time seeing how a BOM can cause a euro in
>any way other than consulting fees.
Mac OS X IE 5.2 is the only browser that does t
The W3C validator compares the document contents with the DTD (ie. validates
it) but does not do checking for compatibility with html specifications.
I.e. it does not do lint checking.
So do not use the validator to prove or disprove that a document conforms to
html syntax or specification.
tex
On Saturday, February 15, 2003, at 07:22 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You could pick up the old TTFDUMP.EXE program from Microsoft Typography
developer's web pages at
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/creators.htm
This utility can dump any or all of the tables in a TTF/OTF into
a plain text f
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The lack of the BOM in the 'white space' section of the specs may
> just be an oversight.
I like the idea. This looks practical to me. Ammending HTML 4 to consider
this.
> Since plain text files can have any kind of file extension, and the
> *.TXT e
Tom Gewecke wrote:
> You can input U+FEFF all by itself in a document and open it with this
> browser and display a Euro. It's not exactly the same Euro as you get
> with U+20AC. Weaker, with an extra tail at the top and equal
> crossbars. Perhaps this indicates a mis-encoded font on the system
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> The mystery remains as to why U+FEFF (or the bytes 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF,
> however interpreted) would be displayed as a Euro sign.
Autodetection as some other codepage?
roozbeh
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
> Found it! It's forbidden to start a HTML 4.0 page with a UTF-8 BOM.
> Proof:
> ...
> That's all. So the only characters that are allowed in a HTML 4.0 web
> page before the HTML header, are U+0009, U+000A, U+000C, U+000D,
> U+0020, and U+200B. QED.
I can't argue with t
Roozbeh Pournader wrote:
>> The mystery remains as to why U+FEFF (or the bytes 0xEF 0xBB 0xBF,
>> however interpreted) would be displayed as a Euro sign.
>
> Autodetection as some other codepage?
The Unicode home page includes the following line, right where it should
be, in the section:
Any
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Doug Ewell wrote:
> The Unicode home page includes the following line, right where it should
> be, in the section:
>
>
>
> Any User Agent that takes a page properly marked as UTF-8, as above, and
> still tries to autodetect a local code page, is badly misguided. How
> wou
14 matches
Mail list logo
