[R6RS] Source code encoding
Tue Mar 15 08:33:18 EST 2005
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Feeley <feeley at IRO.UMontreal.CA> writes:
Marc> Now you are advocating for using UTF-8 only. Why not allow UTF-16 +
Marc> BOM also, since it does not conflict in any way with UTF-8 and UTF-16
Marc> + BOM is the norm on Windows for encoding Unicode text files? What is
Marc> the downside of supporting both of these popular Unicode encodings?
- Because there are standard decoders out there where you can say
"UTF-xx + BOM" where the auto-detection wouldn't work in the setup
- Because, if we allow two different concrete encodings now, we might
want to add a third one in the future, and it's not clear that
leaving out the BOM on one of them where it's actually allowed will
- Because this auto-detection based on a tag that isn't there always
makes me feel queasy, and doesn't seem very robust.
- Because the perceived (by me) complexity.
- Because this is relevant only when you actually ship a Scheme source
file to someone or some other implementation, in which case it
shouldn't be hard to see that it's converted to UTF-8 if it isn't
You're right that I should have stated my actual own position more
clearly at the outset. I was just trying to summarize what had been
said, and to suggest a compromise. (Also, I'm learning through this
discussion.) Sorry about that.
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, V?lkerverst?ndigung und ?berhaupt blabla
More information about the R6RS