Doug Ewell, Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:57:58 -0700: Doug Ewell, Sun, 6 Jan 2013 20:57:58 -0700:
> The bottom line for me is, it would be nice if there were a > shorthand way of saying "big-endian UTF-16," and many people > (including you?) feel that "UTF-16BE" is that way, but it is not. One could say "UTF-16", big-endian. Or big-endian "UTF-16". That’s pretty short. > That term has a DIFFERENT MEANING. The following stream: > > FE FF 00 48 00 65 00 6C 00 6C 00 6F > > is valid big-endian UTF-16, but it is NOT valid "UTF-16BE" unless the > leading U+FEFF is explicitly meant as a zero-width no-break space, > which may not be stripped. I believe I understand this reasonably well. I think we are looking for a term is unaffacted by how we label it. leif halvard silli
