The ambiguity of an initial FEFF was not desirable, but this discussion shows
that certain things can't be so easily "fixed" by adding characters at a later
stage.
The more time elapsed between encoding of the ambiguous character and the later
"fix" the more software, the more data, and the mor
This is an auto-replied message. I am out of office right now.
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, I wrote:
> Example:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sfnet.huuhaa/msg/4a7b0cae182e8c50
> http://groups.google.com/group/sfnet.huuhaa/msg/4a7b0cae182e8c50&dmode=source
Make that:
http://groups.google.com/group/sfnet.huuhaa/msg/4a7b0cae182e8c50?dmode=source
On Fri, 5 Aug 2011, Doug Ewell wrote:
> UTF-8 has the property of being easily detected and verified
> as such, which solves part of the Google Groups problem
> (inability to detect which SBCS is being used).
No, it doesn't solve. The schoolboys working for Google are so dumb
that they even assum
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> So? It was, and it still often is, better to use ISO 8859-1 rather
> than Unicode, in situations where there no tangible benefit, or just a
> smal l benefit, from using Unicode. For example, many people are still
> conservative about encodings in e-mail, for good reasons
5 matches
Mail list logo
