[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:35:24 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
>> Emacs behaves correctly IMO, since its behavior is tuned for reading
>> text, and BOM is not part of the text. If you want to debug the
>> programs that generated that text, you can always use no-conversion or
>> find-file-literally.
> But you don't know what you are debugging until Emacs (or something else)
> points out the unexpected BOM. Indicating the presence of a BOM isn't
> really any different to indicating the encoding, though a better (more
> noticeable) UI might be some indicator in the left fringe on the first line
> of the file, rather than just a change to the character in the modeline.
We could use an approach similar to non-breaking space, where the BOM is
made visible just like any other char, with a special face. Ideally it
would also be somehow protected from accidental removal,
Stefan
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, tomas, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/14
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, tomas, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Juri Linkov, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/15
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jason Rumney, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jason Rumney, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Juri Linkov, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jason Rumney, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/16