[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:04:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
>> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
>> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:10:07 +0200
>>
>> How does recode-region work with encodings having a BOM? Probably the
>> problem is not dissimilar to working with shift encodings. Still I have
>> a hard time to picture either.
>
> I'm not following: what exactly puzzles you in this, and why
> recode-region is an issue?
Because it is not clear whether it should add or remove BOM marks (like
visiting a file would). I've gone into more detail in a different mail
to the list I think, so it might make sense replying there.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
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