[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:19:13 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

>> For what it's worth, I do think it would make sense to try and move
>> the BOM-processing outside of the coding-system proper.  For me a good
>> test for coding-system-worthiness is "what if I use it for a process
>> rather than a file".  Based on this test, I'm not sure if BOMs really
>> fit in (other than for auto-detection and automatically stripping
>> them, maybe).

> Hm?  I don't see why starting communication with a BOM or not would
> _not_ fit in.

I don't think the notion of "start" is quite the same for process data
as for files.

>>> What I proposed was a more generic concept where use of signatures
>>> and the EOL convention would (at least to the user) appear as
>>> buffer-local variables.
>> Here, I disagree: EOL processing definitely need to take place when
>> talking to subprocesses, so EOL-handling doesn't belong in
>> buffer-local vars but in the coding-system.

> I don't quite see the difference to BOM processing, even though the BOM
> processing has to happen only once at the start.

You mean, it's almost exactly the same, except it's completely
different?  Then I agree,


reply via email to

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