[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:19:31 +0300 |
> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:23:45 +0900
>
> Are you saying it was eating non-BOM characters?
Yes, definitely.
> But that's clearly a bug in the codec. If it's going to expect a
> BOM, it should error if it doesn't get one, not eat the character.
Maybe it is (I didn't yet have time to look at the code), but there
could be a good reason for that. If it's so easy to recognize the
BOM, why do we need versions with and without it?
Anyway, it was the naming issue was what I was complaining about, not
the swallowing of a non-BOM character. A user shouldn't be required
to read a doc string of a coding system each time she uses it; the
name of the coding system should be all the clue she needs to decide
which one is appropriate.
utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/13
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- 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
- 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, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15