[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Coding systems documentation
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: Coding systems documentation |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:30:49 +0900 |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/23.0.60 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) |
In article <address@hidden>, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
> > From: Richard M Stallman <address@hidden>
> > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:43:56 -0500
> >
> > address@hidden I think this paragraph is no longer correct.
> > address@hidden
> > Most coding systems specify a particular character code for
> > conversion, but some of them leave the choice unspecified---to be
> > chosen
> > heuristically for each file, based on the data.
> > address@hidden ignore
> >
> > I think these still exist. For example, there are `undecided' and friends.
> Is this only about undecided? or are there other examples?
All coding systems that don't have -unix, -dos, and -mac at
the tail leaves the choice of eol-format unspecified. But,
if you are going to mention about eol-format at the
different place, yes, `undecided' is the only coding that
doesn't specify how text is encode.
> If it's only about undecided, I'd like to rewrite this text to speak
> explicitly about undecided. Then it won't sound so mysteriously.
It seems to be a good idea.
By the way, "specify a particular character code for
conversion" is a little bit strange. "specify a particular
conversion rule between an encoded byte sequence and a
character sequence." is more accurate (and I think clearer).
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden