Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think glibc is wrong here and ought to prefix the output with > 0xFEFF, like it does when converting to "UNICODE" instead of "UTF-16". There was a type in the code writing the BOM which prevented it from being done. -- ---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------ - Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/
- iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one is wrong? etrapani
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Mark Leisher
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which o... Mark Leisher
- RE: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Karlsson Kent - keka
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Bruno Haible
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which o... Ulrich Drepper
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Bruno Haible
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Mark Leisher
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which o... Jean-Marc Desperrier
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Bruno Haible
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... H. Peter Anvin
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one i... Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which o... Bruno Haible
- Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which o... H. Peter Anvin
