[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: |
Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:30:41 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) |
> 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.
I have nothing to say about why Windows adds BOM to UTF-8 files,
but Emacs once saved me much time of debugging the problem when
mobile terminals failed to display files stored by the users of
Windows Notepad that adds BOM to UTF-8 files. In earlier versions
of Emacs (I don't remember in which exactly), Emacs displayed the BOM
character at the beginning of the buffer, so it was easy to see where
the problem was.
Unfortunately, now in Emacs 23 I see no BOM marks displayed at the
beginning of the buffer. I think Emacs should have a visual indication
for such hidden characters.
--
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emacs/
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/14
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 <=
- 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, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Jason Rumney, 2008/04/16
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Kenichi Handa, 2008/04/16