On 11/02/2002 11:59:24 AM "Joseph Boyle" wrote: >The first time I thought of UTF-8Y it sounded too flippant, but actually it >is fairly self-explanatory if UTF-8 is taken as a given, and has the virtue >of being short.
UTF-8Y (and UTF-8J) is not at all intuitive. "UTF-8-yuk"? The better counterpart IMO to UTF-8N[o BOM], if we need these labels at all, would be UTF-8B[OM]. - 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]>
