From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:12 +0900 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208150421 31176 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2008 05:20:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:20:21 +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 07:20:58 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 1JlH7f-0002TI-5A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:20:55 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlH70-0002Ji-Rc for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:20:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlH4P-0001o9-3E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:17:33 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlH4N-0001nf-Fc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:17:32 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlH4N-0001nb-A2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:17:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mx1.aist.go.jp ([150.29.246.133]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JlH4H-0008Oz-Qa; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:17:26 -0400 Original-Received: from rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp (rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp [150.29.254.123]) by mx1.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id m3E5HFuW000164; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:17 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from smtp2.aist.go.jp by rqsmtp2.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id m3E5HDP7024250; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:13 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: by smtp2.aist.go.jp with ESMTP id m3E5HCil000782; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:12 +0900 (JST) env-from (handa@m17n.org) Original-Received: from handa by etlken.m17n.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JlH44-0006fh-5m; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:12 +0900 In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Sun, 13 Apr 2008 10:54:30 -0400) 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) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 8 (1) 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:95156 Archived-At: In article , Eli Zaretskii writes: > 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.) > A similar problem exists with the -be variant of UTF-16. The correct names for "without BOM" versions are utf-16le and utf-16be (RFC2781). The two coding systems utf-16-le and utf-16-be were introduced as "with BOM" version by Dave. I noticed that those names are very confusing when I was going to introduce "without BOM" versions as utf-16be and utf-16le. But as it was after the release of some official version of Emacs (perhaps 21.3), to keep backward compatiblity, I couldn't delete utf-16-be/le. So, I renamed them as utf-16be-with-signature and utf-16le-with-signature and make utf-16-be and utf-16-le just their aliases hoping that new people use only these names: utf-16 utf-16le utf-16be utf-16le-with-signature utf-16be-with-signature Stefan, if you think it's ok to break backward compatiblity here, I'll delete alises utf-16-be and utf-16-le. --- Kenichi Handa handa@ni.aist.go.jp