[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       jabber-jdev
Subject:    Re: [jdev] BOM
From:       Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter () stpeter ! im>
Date:       2008-11-13 23:35:19
Message-ID: 491CB9B7.2010807 () stpeter ! im
[Download RAW message or body]

Waqas Hussain wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Jonathan Dickinson
> <jonathan.dickinson@k2.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: jdev-bounces@jabber.org [mailto:jdev-bounces@jabber.org] On Behalf Of \
> > >                 Peter Saint-Andre
> > > Sent: 07 November 2008 01:51 AM
> > > To: Jabber/XMPP software development list
> > > Subject: Re: [jdev] BOM
> > > 
> > > Jonathan Dickinson wrote:
> > > > Much obliged. As a case of interopability, maybe something like:
> > > > entities MUST NOT send byte order marks, however, they MUST tolerate
> > > > them.
> > > I'm not sure exactly what "tolerate" means.
> > Receiving entities shouldn't fall over when they get a BOM at the start of the \
> > stream: like the clients that I used to test my server did. 
> > -- Jonathan
> 
> Considering that no servers send out BOMs, and pretty much no clients
> do either, I don't really see much point in requiring all XMPP
> software to handle BOMs.

Having done a bit more research, my position is now this: given that
XMPP is UTF-8 and that UTF-8 always has the same byte order, why would
we ever need to include or support a byte order mark in XMPP?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
FAQ: http://www.jabber.org/discussion-lists/jdev-faq
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: JDev-unsubscribe@jabber.org
_______________________________________________


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]