Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8

[Miles Bader]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> No, by "arguably" I'm referring to the fact that although the optional
> UTF-8 signature has been part of ISO/IEC 10646-1 and Unicode for a
> decade or so, not to mention Internet STD 63 (aka RFC 3269), I fully
> expected somebody like you to pop up and argue about it.

"Somebody like me"?

-Miles

-- 
I'd rather be consing.