Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v10 7/9] convert: check for detectable errors in UTF encodings

Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> I also would have liked to advise "UTF-16" instead of "UTF16" as
> you suggested. However, that required a few more lines and I wanted
> to keep the change to a minimum. I feel this could be added in a
> follow up patch.

I'd say the whole upcase thing belongs to such a follow-up patch if
that is the case.

>> On the other hand, if we are not enforcing such a policy decision
>> but merely explaining a way to work around this check, then it may
>> be better to give a variant with the smaller difference from the
>> original (i.e. without up-casing).
> See example mentioned above: "Utf-16". How would you handle that?

Dropping LE suffix from "Utf-16LE" or "Utf16LE" would yield "Utf-16"
or "Utf16" if the advise message does not force policy, or "UTF-16"
in the canoical form if it does.  Is there a problem?