[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?
From: |
Ralf Mattes |
Subject: |
Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific? |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:18:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux)) |
On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:26:22 -0700, Kevin Rodgers wrote:
> The other default element of auto-coding-functions is
> sgml-xml-auto-coding-function, which looks for the encoding specified in
> the XML declaration but is careful to ensure that the declaration occurs
> at the beginning of the buffer (optionally preceded by whitespace, as
> allowed by the XML spec).
Oh, thank's for looking at this: this is a bug :-)
The XML spec _doesn't allow whitespace in front of the XML declaration -
the only thing explicitly allowed is the BOM (byte order mark), and that
_isn't_ whitespace.
Cheers Ralf Mattes
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, (continued)
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2007/01/02
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Kevin Ryde, 2007/01/02
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Richard Stallman, 2007/01/02
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Vincent Lefevre, 2007/01/03
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Richard Stallman, 2007/01/03
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Kenichi Handa, 2007/01/03
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Romain Francoise, 2007/01/04
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Richard Stallman, 2007/01/04
- Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Romain Francoise, 2007/01/05
Re: Should `auto-coding-functions' be mode-specific?, Kevin Rodgers, 2007/01/03