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

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:09:32 +0300
>> From: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden
>> 
>>     Possible completions are:
>>     utf-8            utf-8-dos         utf-8-emacs  utf-8-emacs-dos
>>     utf-8-emacs-mac  utf-8-emacs-unix  utf-8-mac    utf-8-unix
>
> Btw, utf-8-emacs is also an unfortunate name, IMO, because it again
> does not explain in any way the difference between utf-8 and
> utf-8-emacs.  Since I'm already in Emacs, adding -emacs to an encoding
> name adds no information that would help me resolve the ambiguity.
>
> How about emacs-internal instead?  Or anything else with the word
> ``internal'' as part of it?  (The fact that it is based on UTF-8 is
> IMO irrelevant: it's still an internal Emacs representation that is
> understood only by Emacs.)

unicode2-internal?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum