[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le
|
From: |
Stephen J. Turnbull |
|
Subject: |
Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le |
|
Date: |
Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:09:53 +0900 |
Stefan Monnier writes:
> We could use an approach similar to non-breaking space, where the BOM is
> made visible just like any other char, with a special face.
The BOM is not part of the text in a file, it is part of a
higher-level protocol.
- Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le, (continued)
- 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, 2008/04/15
- 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 <=
- 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