[rfc-i] Byte order marks

Joe Touch touch at ISI.EDU
Tue Nov 4 10:49:43 PST 2008

Hash: SHA1

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> It seems your arguments are against use of UTF-8 generally?  At least I
> don't follow from your description if anything would work differently
> depending on whether a UTF-8 BOM is present or not.

I do not see the use of a BOM as a way forward.

I'd like to support the use of UTF-8, but cannot yet see a way to do it
that is sufficiently incremental.

> I'd place XEmacs 21.4.x in the category of old software that doesn't
> support UTF-8. 

It was released about a year ago; are you calling that "old", or deeming
it old solely because it doesn't yet support UTF-8 by default?

> I believe GNU Emacs supports UTF-8 fine under Windows,
> and does not need a BOM to do so.

So here's where the BOM causes problems.

Without the BOM, GNU Emacs displays fine.

With the BOM, GNU Emacs *displays* a miniature hyphen on the first line,
presumably to show a zero-width space (!).

FWIW, GNU Emacs won't print the Chinese characters - even in postscript
mode. So much for UTF-8 support ;-)

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the rfc-interest mailing list