From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:16 -0400 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208181636 5885 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2008 14:00:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Kenichi Handa Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 14 16:01:13 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 1JlPCf-0003An-2c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:58:37 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlPC0-0000j4-Tk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlPBa-0000Yy-74 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:30 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JlPBX-0000Xn-Lm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:29 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JlPBX-0000Xi-CN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:27 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.pppoe.ca ([206.248.154.182] helo=ironport2-out.teksavvy.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JlPBT-00048V-GC; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:23 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApsEAIv/AkhMCqsI/2dsb2JhbACBXqg8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,655,1199682000"; d="scan'208";a="18473420" Original-Received: from smtp.pppoe.ca (HELO smtp.teksavvy.com) ([65.39.196.238]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2008 09:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home ([76.10.171.8]) by smtp.teksavvy.com (Internet Mail Server v1.0) with ESMTP id URT44116; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 26C698A41; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 09:57:16 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Kenichi Handa's message of "Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:17:12 +0900") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. 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:95180 Archived-At: >> 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 That makes sense. > Stefan, if you think it's ok to break backward compatiblity > here, I'll delete alises utf-16-be and utf-16-le. Can you please check Eamcs's own code as well as try and see if other packages might rely on them? I expect that most external packages would be OK since they'd either not care about it or else they'd probably already have to handle the case where utf-16-be is absent (for compatibility with Emacs-21.1 and/or XEmacs). Stefan