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

[tomas]

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

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 08:45:32PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:02:14 +0000
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > From: address@hidden
> > 
> > > 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).
> 
> Actually, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the lack of BOM
> in this case: these are Windows-internal log files, meant to be read
> by utilities who know the encoding, not by general-purpose text
> editors.  UTF-16 is the native encoding used by Windows low-level APIs
> and the kernel for non-ASCII text, so seeing that in a temporary file
> shouldn't be a surprise.  And of course, Windows doesn't need a BOM
> because it uses only one endianness.

Absolutely. I do agree on all this -- it was the stark contrast of not
using BOM sometimes in utf-16 to using BOM in UTF-8 what caused ummm...
some emotions ;-)

> A BOM in UTF-8 is another matter, of course...

Both things taken together make the work of art.

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

iD8DBQFIBFtwBcgs9XrR2kYRAtpuAJ9beaO8hnA+9E9ZwYOGHivuUzsaDgCeKc2t
Jia4zA34M29IAI0AJrd7NyA=
=msxe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----