[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: coding tags and utf-16
From: |
Kenichi Handa |
Subject: |
Re: coding tags and utf-16 |
Date: |
Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:31:03 +0900 |
User-agent: |
SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/22.0.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) |
In article <address@hidden>, Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:
>> So, in any cases, a tag value itself is useless. Then how
>> to detect utf-16 more reliably? In the current Emacs
>> (i.e. Ver.22), I think we can use auto-coding-regexp-alist
>> or auto-coding-alist. In the former case, we can register
>> BOM patterns and also something like "\\`\\(\0[\0-\177]\\)+"
>> for utf-16be. In the latter case, you can use more
>> complicated heuristics in a registered function.
> Can't it be somehow added to detect_coding_utf_16?
Yes, but usually it has no effect if, for instance,
iso-8859-1 is more preferred. If only ASCII and Latin-1
characters are encoded in utf-16, all bytes (including BOM)
are valid for iso-8859-1.
---
Kenichi Handa
address@hidden
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, (continued)
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/01/04
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Kenichi Handa, 2006/01/04
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/01/05
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Werner LEMBERG, 2006/01/05
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Kenichi Handa, 2006/01/06
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/01/06
- Re: coding tags and utf-16, Kenichi Handa, 2006/01/07
Re: coding tags and utf-16, Stefan Monnier, 2006/01/05
- Re: coding tags and utf-16,
Kenichi Handa <=