[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Jan Djärv
Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:19:56 +0200
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080213)

Stephen J. Turnbull skrev:
Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
 > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,
 > >     address@hidden
 > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:23:37 +0900
> > > > I also find it faintly unclean when the system has to go around
 > > parsing symbol names to do things like change the EOL convention
 > > preferred for a buffer.
> > We don't parse the symbol name at all, AFAIR; instead, the properties
 > of each symbol are defined in advance by define-coding-system.

OK, so you've got properties which must be defined in correspondence
with the coding system names.  No parsing needed, but this would
bother me, defining NxMxP symbols when I could define N+M+P symbols.

In recode they have "surfaces". So charset is separate from surfaces, for example EOL convention. That would be nice to have in Emacs as well.

        Jan D.

reply via email to

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