On 11/02/2002 12:15:54 PM "Michael \(michka\) Kaplan" wrote: >> .xml UTF-8N Some XML processors may not cope with BOM > >Maybe they need to upgrade? Since people often edit the files in notepad, >many files are going to have it. A parser that cannot accept this reality is >not going to make it very long.
Ah, now here's an interesting twist. I'm not saying I disagree with Michael. I'm just acknowledging my own need for intellectual honesty, and realising that sometimes we take opposite sides of an opinion because of other factors that we may or may not be conscious of. In particular, I'm thinking of a situation about a year and a half ago (IIRC) in which Michael (and I and others) were strongly opposed to a suggestion that the Unicode Consortium should document a certain variation (perversion, some would say) of one of the Unicode encoding forms that a certain vendor had implemented in their software. On that occasion, Michael (and I and others) were arguing that, just because they had done something in their software, that shouldn't mean that the rest of the world should be forced to support their encoding form. I find it interesting, then, to see Michael saying that, since Notepad sticks a BOM-cum-signature at the start of its UTF-8, the rest of the world should support it. Again, this is just an observation on the particular argument being used, but not on the suggestion being made. - Peter --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Constable Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA Tel: +1 972 708 7485 E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
