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

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

David Kastrup writes:
 > "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> writes:

 > > We're not talking about GNU Emacs 23, we're talking about what should
 > > be.  What I'm trying to say is that all of these variants are
 > > occasionally useful, and they can be decomposed as text coding +
 > > signature + EOL convention, rather than having a zillion variants with
 > > weird names for the user to keep track of.
 > 
 > Well, the solution is then systematic names...

Well, not entirely.  As Eli points out, many of the names won't be
bound to appropriate coding systems as things stand, because they
don't exist.

I also find it faintly unclean when the system has to go around
parsing symbol names to do things like change the EOL convention
preferred for a buffer.