[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Reply to: [list | sender only]
Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- To: Group finalising DDLm and associated dictionaries <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- From: "Herbert J. Bernstein" <[email protected]>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 07:07:45 -0400 (EDT)
- In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
- References: <8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54165DF337D5@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54165DF337D9@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54165DF337DB@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]><8F77913624F7524AACD2A92EAF3BFA54165DF337DD@SJMEMXMBS11.stjude.sjcrh.local><[email protected]>
Let me see if I understand this correctly -- a user takes 2 perfectly good
CIF2 files, edits each to clean up, say, some comments to keep straight
where one begins and one ends, using a well-designed modern text editor
that happens to put a BOM at the start of each file, concatenates the two
files with cat to ship them into the IUCr, and suddenly they have a syntax
error caused by a character that they cannot see!!!
To me this seems pointless when it is trivial for software to recognize
the character and handle it sensibly.
Regards,
Herbert
=====================================================
Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
+1-631-244-3035
[email protected]
=====================================================
On Tue, 18 May 2010, James Hester wrote:
> I would be happy to call an embedded BOM a syntax error.
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Bollinger, John C
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> [..edited out...]
> �
> In other words, almost anything other than what's currently in
> the spec. �I'm OK with treating it as a printing character (ala
> the current spec), though that is my least preferred
> alternative. �Doing so is probably the worst choice for
> compatibility with the kinds of manipulations we're discussing,
> however.
>
> If you don't treat an embedded BOM as a printing character or as
> whitespace, and you don't ignore it (which I agree we should not
> do), then does that leave any alternative other than to account
> it an error?
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> > � Regards,
> > � � Herbert
> >
> >=====================================================
> > �Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
> > � �Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
> > � � � � Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
> >
> > � � � � � � � � �+1-631-244-3035
> > � � � � � � � � �[email protected]
> >=====================================================
>
> Email Disclaimer: �www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer
>
> _______________________________________________
> ddlm-group mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
>
>
>
>
> --
> T +61 (02) 9717 9907
> F +61 (02) 9717 3145
> M +61 (04) 0249 4148
>
>
_______________________________________________ ddlm-group mailing list [email protected] http://scripts.iucr.org/mailman/listinfo/ddlm-group
Reply to: [list | sender only]
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Bollinger, John C)
- References:
- [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Joe Krahn)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Herbert J. Bernstein)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (Bollinger, John C)
- Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM (James Hester)
- Prev by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- Next by Date: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- Prev by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- Next by thread: Re: [ddlm-group] UTF-8 BOM
- Index(es):

