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

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:23:45 +0900
> 
> Are you saying it was eating non-BOM characters?

Yes, definitely.

> But that's clearly a bug in the codec.  If it's going to expect a
> BOM, it should error if it doesn't get one, not eat the character.

Maybe it is (I didn't yet have time to look at the code), but there
could be a good reason for that.  If it's so easy to recognize the
BOM, why do we need versions with and without it?

Anyway, it was the naming issue was what I was complaining about, not
the swallowing of a non-BOM character.  A user shouldn't be required
to read a doc string of a coding system each time she uses it; the
name of the coding system should be all the clue she needs to decide
which one is appropriate.