[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Editing exportet registry files
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: Editing exportet registry files |
Date: |
Sat, 2 Jul 2005 01:38:04 +0200 |
On 7/2/05, Jason Rumney <address@hidden> wrote:
> Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:
> How common is it to have FF FE or FE FF as the first two characters in
> text in any other encoding?
Pretty uncommon. I haven't said otherwise. I'm just pointing out what
I suppose is the original reason to not putting the utf-16 encodings
higher up on the list.
> because of some theoretical worry that it
> might break a hypothetical case that I suspect will only exist in real
> life if someone deliberately sets out to break auto-detection.
I've not checked other encodings. Did you? Are you really sure that
all other frequently used 8-bit encodings put uncommon characters for
0xFF and 0xFE? Because the fact that they aren't ASCII doesn't mean
that they are infrequent in the target language.
> Nonsense. It is very unlikely that UTF-16-LE-WITH-SIGNATURE,
> UTF-16-BE-WITH-SIGNATURE, or even UTF-8 will falsely match any Latin
> (or cyrillic or probably Asian) encoding.
I lack the confidence that you apparently have. I suppose you're
better informed than me (I'm not being facetious). So just change it,
or propose it to be changed. (And perhaps it'd be wise to hear what
Handa-san thinks about it.)
--
/L/e/k/t/u
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, gritsch, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Gaëtan LEURENT, 2005/07/03
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Jason Rumney, 2005/07/03
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, David Kastrup, 2005/07/03
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Kaloian Doganov, 2005/07/04
- Coding system priority (was: Editing exportet registry files), Gaëtan LEURENT, 2005/07/03