From: "Joseph Boyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Yes, it's trivial to check. What's missing is the notation to tell the > checker what to check for.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. If they know its UTF-8, then its either a BOM or its not. It is three specific bytes. > Yes, this is a good description of the sad state of existing software. > Noting that failure to standardize is irritating and unnecessary doesn't > make existing software go away. None of which is "fixed" by naming it. Your suggestion does not solve the problem, to the extent that it is a problem? MichKa
