[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 21:57:01 +0300 |
> From: Kenichi Handa <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:59 +0900
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Also the encoding that use a BOM should not
> > just ignore the first char, but should only do so if the first char is
> > indeed a BOM.
>
> I'll fix that soon.
In case it wasn't clear: this problem exists on the release branch
(and in Emacs 22.2). I didn't try the trunk (didn't have it on the
machine where I found this problem), and from code inspection in
coding.c, it looks like we already do TRT with a BOM that isn't a BOM.
But in Emacs 22.x, the UTF-16 decoder is implemented in CCL, not in C.
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, 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