Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author: Roozbeh Pournader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.utf8
>
> > There is no reason not to. There is no difference if you don't assign
> > code points in that space, and there is no aliasing. Furthermore, it
> > makes you future-proof if/when someone realizes just how bad an idea
> > UTF-16 and 20.1 really is.
>
> I won't get into that. My main concern is autodetection. A tighter
> definition makes autodetection more reliable. In the migration to UTF-8,
> somewhere we need to tell people that they should check the file with
> UTF-8's tight syntax first, and if it fitted, it's UTF-8. Stop.
>
> Wider syntax means more files will be considered UTF-8 while they're not.
>
Oh, please. The wider syntax may catch some stuff, but it's probably
going to be only a small fraction of your mis-detects anyway.
-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/linux-utf8/
