4 ms·
So there is this character, the BOM, which is explicitly allowed by UTF-8 standard. And while it is not really necessary, nor recommended, you are still allowed
by harshpotatoes 17y ago
So there is this character, the BOM, which is explicitly allowed by UTF-8 standard. And while it is not really necessary, nor recommended, you are still allowed to put it in your UTF-8 text files to signal that this text file is encoded in UTF-8.
Then there are all of these *nix programs, which don't know how to deal with these BOM's, simply because the first character in the file they're reading from isn't the shebang or <?php or something like that, but is instead this completely allowable BOM. and everybody believes MS should be fixing their product? am i missing something?
- wendroid 17y agohttp://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/utf.html http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/utf.html Doesn't say anthing about BOM.
- harshpotatoes 17y ago"In UTF-8, the BOM corresponds to the byte sequence <EF16 BB16 BF16>. Although there are never any questions of byte order with UTF-8 text, this sequence can serve as signature for UTF-8 encoded text where the character set is unmarked." http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch16.pdf http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode5.2.0/ch16.pdf
- wendroid 17y agoYou can always trust a standards body to screw something up.
- Zak 17y agoI think the author simply believes people should not be using Windows notepad to edit scripts intended to be run on *nix. I can't think of many situations in which it would make sense to do that anyway.