> > There is a serious problem with coding tags and utf-16 encodings
> > of any flavour: Emacs simply can't recognize the tag. This is a
> > non-trivial problem.
>
> Sorry for the late reply, but I think coding tag is useless for a
> file encoded in some of utf-16 variants.
>
> If a file has BOM
> XEmacs 21.5.24 appears to have the following coding-systems (excluding
> useless iso-2022 variants): [...]
Thanks a lot! I've updated the conversion table accordingly.
Werner
___
Groff mailing list
Groff@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/l
> Here's a little bit of advice on the autoconf stuff for preconv.
Thanks a lot! I've applied your patch as-is.
> - For nl_langinfo(CODESET), there is a macro AM_LANGINFO_CODESET
> in gnulib. One file:
> m4/codeset.m4
> Alternatively, you can also use the gnulib module 'localcharset',
>
> When I look at the emacs_to_mime conversion table, it already looks
> like it contains too many entries. Nobody in his sane mind will ever
> write a manpage in CP851 or MAC-ROMAN encoding.
Hehe.
> Thinking about long-term cost of supporting an encoding. Now is the
> moment when we have comple
On 1/3/06, D. E. Evans wrote:
>Bruno Haible wrote:
>
>This list contains no CPxxx encodings, in particular no WINDOWS-
>encodings. Microsoft continues to extend these encodings over
>and over again, with the result that, say, a text written today
>in CP950 on a Windows-XP machi
