Jason Rumney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gaëtan LEURENT) writes: > >> For UTF-16 with signature, I agree, but UTF-8 could sometimes match >> a Latin-1 file. For instance, "4×½=2" encoded in Latin-1 is valid >> as a UTF-8 string. A friend of mine suggested "Try our new >> exclusive WAZA® for just $0.02!" which is even meaningful in both >> cases. > > Coming up with isolated theoretical problem cases should not stop us > from doing what is correct in the other 99% of cases.
I think Gaëtan is arguing that we should not prefer UTF-8 in a Latin-1 locale. This is pretty much a red herring: we were discussing the UTF-16-with-signature encodings: there is no necessity whatsoever to group their priority with UTF-8. I agree that in a Latin-1 locale, Latin-1 should be preferred over UTF-8 and vice versa as long as the buffers can be interpreted as being valid in both encodings. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
