[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
|
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
|
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
|
Date: |
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:59 +0900 |
|
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/23.0.60 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) |
In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
> Also the encoding that use a BOM should not
> just ignore the first char, but should only do so if the first char is
> indeed a BOM.
I'll fix that soon.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/13