Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 07:02:14 +0000
> Cc: address@hidden
> From: address@hidden
> 
> > I tripped over these when I tried to read debugging logs saved by
> > MS-Windows, which are in UTF-16 without a BOM: [...]
> 
> This is courtesy of the same folks who like to put BOMs in UTF-8. I'm
> speechless (again).

Actually, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with the lack of BOM
in this case: these are Windows-internal log files, meant to be read
by utilities who know the encoding, not by general-purpose text
editors.  UTF-16 is the native encoding used by Windows low-level APIs
and the kernel for non-ASCII text, so seeing that in a temporary file
shouldn't be a surprise.  And of course, Windows doesn't need a BOM
because it uses only one endianness.

A BOM in UTF-8 is another matter, of course...