[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: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:32:11 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>  > > Huh?  We don't have the full suite, but we do have -signature variants.
>  > 
>  > Bot for UTF-8, we don't, at least not in GNU Emacs 23.
> We're not talking about GNU Emacs 23, we're talking about what should
> be.  What I'm trying to say is that all of these variants are
> occasionally useful, and they can be decomposed as text coding +
> signature + EOL convention, rather than having a zillion variants with
> weird names for the user to keep track of.

Well, the solution is then systematic names...

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

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