[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: |
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:46:18 +0300 |
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:25:51 +0900
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>
> I agree, as you state it, it's obvious. My question is "why does that
> need to be part of the coding system?"
Well, consistency with other ``add-ons'', such as EOL format, is one
reason.
> At present the UTF-16 and
> UTF-32 Unicode coding systems (in the abstract) have *twenty-seven*
> variants each (BOM-required, BOM-prohibited, BOM-autodetected X be,
> le, system-dependent X CR, LF, CRLF), and UTF-8 needs *nine*.
Which 9 are needed by UTF-8? I only see 4: the auto-detecting one,
then one each for -unix. -dos, and -mac. What am I missing?
> 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.
Don't forget that en/decoding is used on strings as well, not only on
buffers. Buffer-local variables won't cut it, I think.
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, 2008/04/14
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/15
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/16