-------- Original Message -------- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 13:45:59 +0200 From: Steven Atreju <snatr...@googlemail.com> To: "Doug Ewell" <d...@ewellic.org> Subject: Re: UTF-8 BOM (Re: Charset declaration in HTML)
Doug Ewell wrote: |For those who haven't yet had enough of this debate yet, here's a link |to an informative blog (with some informative comments) from Michael |Kaplan: | |"Every character has a story #4: U+feff (alternate title: UTF-8 is the |BOM, dude!)" |http://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2005/01/20/357028.aspx | |What should be interesting is that this blog dates to January 2005, |seven and a half years ago, and yet includes the following: | |"But every 4-6 months another huge thread on the Unicode List gets |started about how bad the BOM is for UTF-8 and how it breaks UNIX tools |that have been around and able to support UTF-8 without change for |decades and about how Microsoft is evil for shipping Notepad that causes |all of these problems and how neither the W3C nor Unicode would have |ever supported a UTF-8 BOM if Microsoft did not have Notepad doing it, |and so on, and so on." | |And here we are again. Interesting, thanks for the pointer. I didn't know that. Funny that a program that cannot handle files larger than 0x7FFF bytes (laste time i've used it, 95B) has such a large impact. And sorry for the noise, then. Steven