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

["Jan Djärv" <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

Stephen J. Turnbull skrev:
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> 
>  > > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
>  > > Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
>  > >     emacs-devel@gnu.org
>  > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:23:37 +0900
>  > > 
>  > > 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.
>  > 
>  > We don't parse the symbol name at all, AFAIR; instead, the properties
>  > of each symbol are defined in advance by define-coding-system.
> 
> OK, so you've got properties which must be defined in correspondence
> with the coding system names.  No parsing needed, but this would
> bother me, defining NxMxP symbols when I could define N+M+P symbols.
> 

In recode they have "surfaces".  So charset is separate from surfaces, for 
example EOL convention.  That would be nice to have in Emacs as well.

	Jan D.