Re: iconv output utf-8 -> utf-16, which one is wrong?

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:    Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
>
> H. Peter Anvin writes:
> 
> > I would say this isn't really a good idea... a BOM isn't
> > meaning-neutral, so if you're converting pieces of text and end up
> > adding BOMs in the middle, you have changed the meaning.
> 
> Certainly, yes. The one who chooses to convert anything to UTF-16
> should know about this; and this is why the RFC is explicit about it.
> The RFC also says that you can avoid the BOM problem by using UTF-16LE
> and UTF-16BE instead of UTF-16.
> 

The point is that I don't think iconv should emit BOMs unless you
explicitly ask for them.  Do they emit BOMs if you ask for UTF-16BE?

        -hpa
-- 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
-
Linux-UTF8:   i18n of Linux on all levels
Archive:      http://mail.nl.linux.org/lists/