[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:32:42 +0900 |
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> Maybe it is (I didn't yet have time to look at the code), but there
> could be a good reason for that. If it's so easy to recognize the
> BOM, why do we need versions with and without it?
I don't know, in fact I think I think it's a bad idea. That's what
the part of my message that you snipped was saying. But I'll have to
defer to Handa-san on that.
utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/13
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/13
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le,
Stephen J. Turnbull <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Andreas Schwab, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15