[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:01:14 +0900 |
Eli Zaretskii writes:
> Which 9 are needed by UTF-8? I only see 4: the auto-detecting one,
> then one each for -unix. -dos, and -mac. What am I missing?
BOM-{prohibited,auto,required}. Just because you don't see a need for
them doesn't mean that there are cases where somebody might want to
force or prohibit BOMs in UTF-8 for compatibility with other apps.
> Don't forget that en/decoding is used on strings as well, not only on
> buffers. Buffer-local variables won't cut it, I think.
Strings don't have encoding signatures or newline variants; those
octet sequences if present in a string are merely binary octet
sequences. They only have special semantics in external
representations. Where's the problem?
utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/13
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/13
- 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 <=
- 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
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/15
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, David Kastrup, 2008/04/16
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16