[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
From: |
Juri Linkov |
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
Date: |
Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:17:35 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
>>> 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,
There is currently one way to display the BOM in Emacs: visiting
a file that contains the BOM with a BOM-less coding (e.g. visiting
a utf-16le-with-signature file forcing the utf-16le coding) displays
at the beginning of the buffer a big ugly character that looks like
some screen garbage. There is some interesting information about it:
name: ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE
old-name: BYTE ORDER MARK
This looks like it was once renamed, and a new name hints not to
display it due to its supposed zero width.
Maybe then a better indication would be in the modeline by displaying
the name of the coding with signature explicitly like "U(BOM)".
--
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- 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, 2008/04/16
- 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 <=
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jason Rumney, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/16