On 7/2/05, Jason Rumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Juanma Barranquero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How common is it to have FF FE or FE FF as the first two characters in
> text in any other encoding?
Pretty uncommon. I haven't said otherwise. I'm just pointing out what
I suppose is the original reason to not putting the utf-16 encodings
higher up on the list.
> because of some theoretical worry that it
> might break a hypothetical case that I suspect will only exist in real
> life if someone deliberately sets out to break auto-detection.
I've not checked other encodings. Did you? Are you really sure that
all other frequently used 8-bit encodings put uncommon characters for
0xFF and 0xFE? Because the fact that they aren't ASCII doesn't mean
that they are infrequent in the target language.
> Nonsense. It is very unlikely that UTF-16-LE-WITH-SIGNATURE,
> UTF-16-BE-WITH-SIGNATURE, or even UTF-8 will falsely match any Latin
> (or cyrillic or probably Asian) encoding.
I lack the confidence that you apparently have. I suppose you're
better informed than me (I'm not being facetious). So just change it,
or propose it to be changed. (And perhaps it'd be wise to hear what
Handa-san thinks about it.)
--
/L/e/k/t/u
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
