[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:32:11 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
>
> > > Huh? We don't have the full suite, but we do have -signature variants.
> >
> > Bot for UTF-8, we don't, at least not in GNU Emacs 23.
>
> We're not talking about GNU Emacs 23, we're talking about what should
> be. What I'm trying to say is that all of these variants are
> occasionally useful, and they can be decomposed as text coding +
> signature + EOL convention, rather than having a zillion variants with
> weird names for the user to keep track of.
Well, the solution is then systematic names...
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- 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 <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jan Djärv, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/17
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Eli Zaretskii, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stefan Monnier, 2008/04/14