[whatwg] several messages about handling encodings in HTML
foolistbar at googlemail.com
Fri Feb 29 08:09:42 PST 2008
On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:21, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> - Again there, shouldn't we be given unicode codepoints for that (as
>> it'll be a unicode string)?
> Not sure what you mean.
This is just me being incredibly dumb. Ignore it.
> On Sat, 26 May 2007, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> The draft says:
>> "A leading U+FEFF BYTE ORDER MARK (BOM) must be dropped if present."
>> That's reasonable for UTF-8 when the encoding has been established by
>> other means.
>> However, when the encoding is UTF-16LE or UTF-16BE (i.e. supposed
>> to be
>> signatureless), do we really want to drop the BOM silently?
>> Shouldn't it
>> count as a character that is in error?
> Do the UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE specs make a leading BOM an error?
> If yes, then we don't have to say anything, it's already an error.
> If not, what's the advantage of complaining about the BOM in this
I don't see anything making a BOM illegal in UTF-16LE/UTF-16BE, in
fact, the only mention I find of it with regards to either in Unicode
5.0 is "In UTF-16(BE|LE), an initial byte sequence <(FE FF|FF FE)> is
interpreted as U+FEFF zero width no-break space."
I suppose the rational given for removing it is the section that
follows D101 (e.g., "When converting between different encoding
schemes…UTF-8 byte sequences is not recommended by the Unicode
More information about the whatwg