Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can determine that that particular text is not legal UTF-32*,
since there be illegal code points in any of the three forms. IF you
exclude null code points, again heuristically, that also excludes
UTF-8, and almost all non-Unicode encodings. That
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 23:02
Subject: Variations of UTF-16 (was: Re: UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES
AGAIN)
Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can determine that that particular text is not legal UTF-32*,
since there be illegal code points in any of the three forms. IF
you
Mark Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I must not *call* the sequence UTF-16, since that term is
officially
reserved for BOM-marked text which can be either little- or
big-endian,
or BOMless text which must be big-endian.
Yes, assuming the BUT clause applies to (b). That is, the untagged
byte
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:00:17AM -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
The Unix and Linux world is very
opposed to the use of BOM in plain-text files, and if they feel that way
about UTF-8 they probably feel the same about UTF-16.
Why? The problems with a BOM in UTF-8 have to do with it being an
Why? The problems with a BOM in UTF-8 have to do with it being an
ASCII-compatible encoding.
Err, no. That's not the point, AFAIK. The point is that traditionally
in UNIX there hasn't been any sort of marker or tag in the beginning,
UNIX files being flat streams of bytes. The UNIX toolset
You can determine that that particular text is not legal UTF-32*,
since there be illegal code points in any of the three forms. IF you
exclude null code points, again heuristically, that also excludes
UTF-8, and almost all non-Unicode encodings. That leaves UTF-16, 16BE,
16LE as the only
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 01:37:39PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Err, no. That's not the point, AFAIK. The point is that traditionally
in UNIX there hasn't been any sort of marker or tag in the beginning,
UNIX files being flat streams of bytes. The UNIX toolset has been built
with this
://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: Yves Arrouye [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Mark Davis' [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Ewell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 10:39
Subject: RE: UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, David Starner wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2002 at 09:00:17AM -0700, Doug Ewell wrote:
The Unix and Linux world is very
opposed to the use of BOM in plain-text files, and if they feel that way
about UTF-8 they probably feel the same about UTF-16.
The reason we're not so
Doug Ewell scripsit:
The Unix and Linux world is very
opposed to the use of BOM in plain-text files, and if they feel that way
about UTF-8 they probably feel the same about UTF-16.
I doubt it. The trouble with BOMizing is that it makes ASCII not a
subset of UTF-8, but ASCII cannot be a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
FYI: http://linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-1106.html#3
And I thought the Unicode bomber was %u9090%u6858%ucbd3... guy!
-bin/icu/tr]
http://www.macchiato.com
- Original Message -
From: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 20:49
Subject: Re: UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN
Kenneth Whistler [EMAIL PROTECTED
There he sits in wait until you switch on, and BAM, all your data
turns to squares and the little beastie is laughing his socks off.
That should have been BOM.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
Doug Ewell pun'ed:
There he sits in wait until you switch on, and BAM, all your data
turns to squares and the little beastie is laughing his socks off.
That should have been BOM.
Yes, and turns to squares should have been turns to replacement
characters.
--
From: Tex Texin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Doug Ewell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "UNICODE BOMBER STRIKES AGAIN"
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:21:48 -0400
Doug Ewell pun'ed:
There he sits in wait until you switch on, and BAM, all your dat
On 04/22/2002 02:21:48 PM Tex Texin wrote:
Doug Ewell pun'ed:
There he sits in wait until you switch on, and BAM, all your data
turns to squares and the little beastie is laughing his socks off.
That should have been BOM.
Yes, and turns to squares should have been turns to replacement
Doug Ewell pun'ed:
There he sits in wait until you switch on, and BAM, all your data
turns to squares and the little beastie is laughing his socks off.
That should have been BOM.
Yes, and turns to squares should have been turns to replacement
characters.
There he sits in wait
17 matches
Mail list logo
