On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 09:46:18AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 27 2018, brian m. carlson wrote:
>
> > We've recently fielded several reports from unhappy Windows users about
> > our handling of UTF-16, UTF-16LE, and UTF-16BE, none of which seem to be
> > suitable for cer
On 28/12/2018 08:59, Johannes Sixt wrote:
Am 28.12.18 um 00:45 schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 08:55:27PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
But why do you add another U+FEFF on the way to UTF-8? There is one
in the
incoming UTF-16 data, and only *that* one must be converted. If
the
On 28/12/2018 08:46, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Thu, Dec 27 2018, brian m. carlson wrote:
We've recently fielded several reports from unhappy Windows users about
our handling of UTF-16, UTF-16LE, and UTF-16BE, none of which seem to be
suitable for certain Windows programs.
Just for cont
Am 28.12.18 um 00:45 schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 08:55:27PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
But why do you add another U+FEFF on the way to UTF-8? There is one in the
incoming UTF-16 data, and only *that* one must be converted. If there is no
U+FEFF in the UTF-16 data, the shou
On Thu, Dec 27 2018, brian m. carlson wrote:
> We've recently fielded several reports from unhappy Windows users about
> our handling of UTF-16, UTF-16LE, and UTF-16BE, none of which seem to be
> suitable for certain Windows programs.
Just for context, is "we" here $DAYJOB or a reference to som
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 08:55:27PM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> Am 27.12.18 um 17:43 schrieb brian m. carlson:
> > You've got part of this. For UTF-16LE and UTF-16BE, a U+FEFF is part of
> > the text, as would a second one be if we had two at the beginning of a
> > UTF-16 or UTF-8 sequence. If som
Am 27.12.18 um 17:43 schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
It worries me that theoretical correctness is regarded higher than existing
practice. I do not care a lot what some RFC tells what programs should do if
the majority of the software does
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:06:17AM +0100, Johannes Sixt wrote:
> It worries me that theoretical correctness is regarded higher than existing
> practice. I do not care a lot what some RFC tells what programs should do if
> the majority of the software does something different and that behavior has
>
Am 27.12.18 um 03:17 schrieb brian m. carlson:
We've recently fielded several reports from unhappy Windows users about
our handling of UTF-16, UTF-16LE, and UTF-16BE, none of which seem to be
suitable for certain Windows programs.
In an effort to communicate the reasons for our behavior more
eff
We've recently fielded several reports from unhappy Windows users about
our handling of UTF-16, UTF-16LE, and UTF-16BE, none of which seem to be
suitable for certain Windows programs.
In an effort to communicate the reasons for our behavior more
effectively, explain in the documentation that the U
10 matches
Mail list logo
