On 26 June 2017 at 16:55, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote:
> Byte Order Mark isn't perfectly descriptive when used with UTF-8. Neither > is dialing a cell phone. Language evolves. > It's not descriptive in the slightest because UTF-8's byte order is *specified by the encoding*. I'm not advocating one way or > another, but if a system strips U+FEFF from a text stream after using it to > determine the encoding, surely it is reasonable to expect that for all > supported encodings. > ?? Are you going to strip 0xFE 0xFF from the front of my iso8859-1 encoded stream and drop my beautiful smiley? þÿ Different encodings demand different treatment. BOM is an artifact of 16/32-bit unicode encodings and can kindly keep its nose out of [the relatively elegant] UTF-8. -Rowan _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
