Um, that one was really confused and didn't really work. (IIRC it didn't round trip to the right encoding in some cases, and itself was causing some nasty compatibility problems before the tweak to the name. Also, we still recognize the old bizarre name).
-----Original Message----- From: unicode-bou...@unicode.org [mailto:unicode-bou...@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Masatoshi Kimura Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:28 PM To: unicode@unicode.org Subject: Re: cp1252 decoder implementation (2012/11/22 1:58), Shawn Steele wrote: > We aren’t going change names (since that’ll break anyone already using > them), we probably won’t recognize new names (since anyone trying to > use a new name wouldn’t work on millions of existing computers, so no > one would add it). Hey, why Microsoft changed "unicodeFFFE" to "unicodeFEFF"? What's the benefit of sacrificing the backword compatibility? According to Michael S. Kaplan, once some Microsoft people (including you) said that they wouldn't change it because of compatibility. https://blogs.msdn.com/b/michkap/archive/2005/09/11/463444.aspx?Redirected=true I admit your have a valid point, but why don't you do what you says? -- vyv03...@nifty.ne.jp
