[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:35:23 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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.)


David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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