[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: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:03:13 +0300

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>,
>     address@hidden
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:20:47 +0900
> Jan Djärv writes:
>  > 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.
> Do you know how recode's terminology maps to Unicode TR #17?

AFAIU, what `recode' calls ``surface'' is a Transfer Encoding Syntax
(TES) in UTR #17 parlance.

reply via email to

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