On Fri, 22 Mar 2002 23:48:07 +0100, Kent Karlsson said: > I don't know what you mean by "native language encoding". The encoding > here used 8859-4 with QP, but that is no more "native" nor more > "language" than e.g. (most e-mail programs put the encoding outermost) I meant "the e with macron as my last name had for hundreds of years in the part of Europe where my ancestors lived, not the e without a macron that got substituted when my parents got off the boat in the US just because US English doesn't have a macron." > No, I don't see what you mean. I particular I don't know what you > mean by "raw Unicode" (do you mean "in UTF-8"? UTF-16 is not > compatible with 7-bit ASCII, so you cannot mean that). And even more > in particular, I don't see why you have singled out U+0D0A at all. > Malayalam is beside the point, so you cannot mean that, do you.) That > 0x0D 0x0A is CR LF in ASCII is of course totally irrelevant (see above), > unless you do the most huge blunder imaginable ;-) (directly mixing > ASCII and UTF-16), and you don't do THAT, do you... I don't do that. But that's the sort of thing you're going to have to worry about when people start cut-n-pasting between updated applications and non-updated ones. Hint: How many postings have there been on Bugtraq about IIS and zillions of CGI scripts failing because they didn't handle CRLF encoded in unexpected ways, or other similar failings (shell metacharacters escaped as %nnn, etc)? There be nasty dragons here, and I suspect that a lot of people are trying to minimize them. -- Valdis Kletnieks Computer Systems Senior Engineer Virginia Tech
Attachment:
pgp00007.pgp
Description: PGP signature