[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:31:40 +0300

> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:09:32 +0300
> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>     Possible completions are:
>     utf-8            utf-8-dos         utf-8-emacs  utf-8-emacs-dos
>     utf-8-emacs-mac  utf-8-emacs-unix  utf-8-mac    utf-8-unix

Btw, utf-8-emacs is also an unfortunate name, IMO, because it again
does not explain in any way the difference between utf-8 and
utf-8-emacs.  Since I'm already in Emacs, adding -emacs to an encoding
name adds no information that would help me resolve the ambiguity.

How about emacs-internal instead?  Or anything else with the word
``internal'' as part of it?  (The fact that it is based on UTF-8 is
IMO irrelevant: it's still an internal Emacs representation that is
understood only by Emacs.)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]