[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: |
Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:26:52 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>>> 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,
"Start/end of line" and "Start of buffer/communication" is not
"completely different". Likewise, "\\`" and "^" are not "completely
different" regular expressions. They are different, yes, but less
different than a lot of other things.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jan Djärv, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/14
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/14
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, tomas, 2008/04/14