| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de" <tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [rfc] unicode escapes for extended strings |
| Date: | 2009-09-25 09:27:41 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0909250227l3ede39efkdb8eb6020c8b08a5@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/25/09, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de <tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 09:42:32PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Good idea. This could also check for other invalid things like
> > byte-order marks in UTF-8.
>
> But watch out. Microsoft apps do like to insert a BOM at the beginning
> of the text. Not that I think it's a good idea, but the Unicode folks
> seem to think its OK [1] :-(
As BOM does not actively break transport layers, it's less clear-cut
whether to reject it. It could be said that BOM at the start of string
is OK. BOM at the middle of string is more rejectable. But it will
only confuse some high-level character counters, not low-level encoders.
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-09-25 09:56:37 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-09-25 08:49:37 | Re: Hot Standby 0.2.1 |