[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8 |
Date: |
Fri, 30 May 2008 12:59:50 +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>, Miles Bader <address@hidden> writes:
> Kenichi Handa <address@hidden> writes:
> > I have not followed the discussion of this thread, but FYI,
> > I've just added two new coding systems: utf-8-auto and
> > utf-8-with-signature. utf-8 still decodes the first 0xFEFF
> > as a normal character.
> That seems reasonable ... what's their ordering in the coding
> priority list by default...?
They are fairly low unless explicitly preferred.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, (continued)
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Miles Bader, 2008/05/18
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, David Kastrup, 2008/05/18
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/05/18
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, David Kastrup, 2008/05/19
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/05/19
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, David Kastrup, 2008/05/19
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2008/05/19
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, David Kastrup, 2008/05/20
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Kenichi Handa, 2008/05/29
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Miles Bader, 2008/05/29
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8,
Kenichi Handa <=
- Re: 23.0.60; [nxml] BOM and utf-8, Lennart Borgman (gmail), 2008/05/19