Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

[tomas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:54:30AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> These two encodings have confusingly similar names, but significantly
> different semantics: one expects a BOM, the other does not.  (I'll bet
> a sixpack of beer that most of you will not know which one is which.)

I'd owe you one by now :-)

[...]

> I tripped over these when I tried to read debugging logs saved by
> MS-Windows, which are in UTF-16 without a BOM: [...]

This is courtesy of the same folks who like to put BOMs in UTF-8. I'm
speechless (again).

Regards
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFIAwF2Bcgs9XrR2kYRAjBLAJ9gDshIobO1WEgDK65WdxI+C1stZACfa1tO
6RKbsr8NYQhg59GS3Yhl96c=
=Q1Og
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----