[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
|
From: |
David Kastrup |
|
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
|
Date: |
Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:10:07 +0200 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
> 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.
How does recode-region work with encodings having a BOM? Probably the
problem is not dissimilar to working with shift encodings. Still I have
a hard time to picture either.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
utf-16le vs utf-16-le, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/04/13