Tom Emerson <tree@basistech.com> writes: > The UTF-8 BOM is an aBOMination that should not be allowed to > live. The only editor that I know of that inserts the sequence is > Microsoft's WordPad (or TextPad, I don't use either). I hope XEmacs > isn't going to do this. I used to think the same way, but now I have changed sides. I still agree that the notion of UCS byte orders is an abomination, and even that using UCS in on-disk files is a stupid thing to do. Reliable detection of encodings is a good thing, though, as the Web has demonstrated. Encoding declarations are good (this is the idea behind PEP 263). Just consider the UTF-8 BOM not as a byte-order mark (what byte order, anyway), but as an encoding declaration, or signature. With that view, I can happily accept it as useful, and I wish more editors would atleast comprehend it (in the sense of displaying it with zero width), and perhaps even generate it. Regards, Martin
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4