[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Editing exportet registry files
From: |
Juanma Barranquero |
Subject: |
Re: Editing exportet registry files |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Jul 2005 20:01:14 +0200 |
On 7/1/05, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Shouldn't the utf-x files with signature be quite in front of the list
> of detected coding systems? I mean, that's what the signature is good
> for in the first place, right?
Well, yeah, but FF and FE *are* valid characters in many encodings.
Latin encodings for most european language environments are going to
be higher up the priority list, for example. It makes no sense putting
utf-* encodings before the others unless you know beforehand that
you're going to deal with a lot of these files.
And there's an UTF-8 language environment, after all, for people who
routinely deals with utf-8 data. Are there environments (operating
systems, language environments, whatever) where utf-16 is the norm?
--
/L/e/k/t/u
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, gritsch, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Miles Bader, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, David Kastrup, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Jason Rumney, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/01
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Andreas Schwab, 2005/07/02
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Juanma Barranquero, 2005/07/02
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Gaëtan LEURENT, 2005/07/03
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Jason Rumney, 2005/07/03
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, David Kastrup, 2005/07/03
- Re: Editing exportet registry files, Kaloian Doganov, 2005/07/04