From: Nuno L. <lu...@nl...> - 2004-09-21 18:39:18
|
Sean Brook, dando pulos de alegria, escreveu : > Hi, > > I think the patch is correct. See here: > http://www.unicode.org/faq/utf_bom.html#22 Unfortunelly no, as I explain below. > Also, take a look here: > http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/unicode.html#ucsutf > > scroll down to the part that reads: > It has also been suggested to use the UTF-8 encoded BOM (0xEF 0xBB 0xBF) > as a signature to mark the beginning of a UTF-8 file. This practice > should definitely not be used on POSIX systems for several reasons etc The patch is intended to fix those "brain dead" editors that add a BOM to an UTF-8 encoded file, not to encode one ourselfs. The XML library we use is a very simple one, and chokes on this. We don't support UCS2, UTF-16 or UTF-32 encoded XML files, so no need to check for other BOMs, as it will probably fail anyway. Regards, ~Nuno Lucas |