Re: [Json] BOMs

[[e-mail] (Henry S. Thompson)]

Pete Cordell writes:

> ----- Original Message From: "Henry S. Thompson"
>
>> I agree that XML is a useful point of comparison, in particular
>> because it too does not allow a BOM as part of an XML document, but
>> rather treats it as an aspect of packaging/transport external to the
>> XML document, which seems to me to be the kind of approach to BOMs the
>> JSON WG might consider.
>
>
> If I remember rightly, XML demotes notes about encoding detection and
> BOMs to a rather lowly (informational?) appendix.  Maybe that's
> something JSON should do in the interests of interoperability (AKA
> avoidance of confusion -
> which there seems to be a lot of).

There is indeed a non-normative appendix [1] which gives
implementation advice.  But there is also a normative section [2]
which, _inter alia_ makes a BOM a requirement in certain
circumstances.

ht

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-guessing
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#charencoding
-- 
       Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh
      10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
                Fax: [phone], e-mail: [e-mail]
                       URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
 [mail from me _always_ has a .sig like this -- mail without it is forged spam]