Aaron Denney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It provides variants of UTF-16/32 with and without a BOM, but >> UTF-8 only has the variant with a BOM. This makes UTF-8 a stateful >> encoding. > > I think you mean "UTF-8 only has the variant without a BOM".
No, unfortunately. Unicode standard section 3.10 defines encoding schemes:
- UTF-8 (with a BOM) - UTF-16BE (without a BOM) - UTF-16LE (without a BOM) - UTF-16 (with a BOM) - UTF-32BE (without a BOM) - UTF-32LE (without a BOM) - UTF-32 (with a BOM)
It says about UTF-8 BOM: "Its usage at the beginning of a UTF-8 data stream is neither required nor recommended by the Unicode Standard, but its presence does not affect conformance to the UTF-8 encoding scheme."
IMHO it would be fair if it had two variants of UTF-8 encoding scheme, just like it has three variants of UTF-16/32, so it would be unambiguous whether "UTF-8" in a particular context allows BOM or not.
I haven't been following this thread in detail, so I may be missing something, but...
How can it make sense to have a BOM in UTF-8? UTF-8 is a sequence of octets (bytes); what ordering is there here that can sensibly be varied?
#g
------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
