From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@tuxteam.de Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:02:14 +0000 Message-ID: <20080414070214.GA3956@www.trapp.net> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; x-action=pgp-signed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208156738 14485 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2008 07:05:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:05:38 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 14 09:06:10 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JlIlB-0007mR-Pe for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:05:54 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlIkX-0002vD-2s for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:05:09 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlIkS-0002uZ-IQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:05:04 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlIkP-0002tj-GY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:05:03 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlIkP-0002tg-CP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:05:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JlIkM-0005dy-5a; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:04:58 -0400 Original-Received: from alextrapp1.equinoxe.de ([217.22.192.104] helo=www.elogos.de) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JlIkK-0004xo-II; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:04:56 -0400 Original-Received: by www.elogos.de (Postfix, from userid 4000) id 747204B61B; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:02:14 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-detected-kernel: by mx20.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:95164 Archived-At: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:54:30AM -0400, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > These two encodings have confusingly similar names, but significantly > different semantics: one expects a BOM, the other does not. (I'll bet > a sixpack of beer that most of you will not know which one is which.) I'd owe you one by now :-) [...] > I tripped over these when I tried to read debugging logs saved by > MS-Windows, which are in UTF-16 without a BOM: [...] This is courtesy of the same folks who like to put BOMs in UTF-8. I'm speechless (again). Regards - -- tom=C3=A1s -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIAwF2Bcgs9XrR2kYRAjBLAJ9gDshIobO1WEgDK65WdxI+C1stZACfa1tO 6RKbsr8NYQhg59GS3Yhl96c=3D =3DQ1Og -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----