On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:58:20PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 03:50:19PM +0200, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > 5. All programs consuning UTF8 Text must understand a BOM. > > I'm afraid I don't agree here: BOMs are nasty stuff that serve no purpose > once you standardize on UTF8. They might help with exchange with a minority > of Windows programs, at a cost at our side. Windows hardly does plain text: > most of that is MSVC/etc sources, but then, the C/C++ standards explicitely > forbid junk in places other than comments. Most other languages expect a > hashbang on Unix, which makes BOMs impossible. I agree that BOMs are nasty and should not be generated by our standard tools. I have been bitten by BOMs more than once and had a hard time looking for the fault until looking at the "plain ascii" file with a hex editor. AFAIK Tools like vim understand and hide the fact that there is a BOM and rewrite them. Other tools give "interesting" results stumping on a BOM. So its inconstistent which makes it hard to find. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f@zz.de
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature