Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode

From: Doug Ewell (doug@ewellic.org)
Date: Mon Feb 08 2010 - 20:56:51 CST

Next message: Michael D'Errico: "GB18030 (was Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode)"

Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode"
Maybe in reply to: Andreas Prilop: "Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

Never mind:

> 2. Use charset detection, which uses a number of signals. The primary
> signal is a statistical analysis of the bytes in the document, but the
> charset tagging is taken into account (and can sometimes make a
> difference).

I was blind and missed the part where option 2 does take the tagging
into account. Then again, if that is working correctly, how does
properly tagged 8859-2 get represented as 8859-1?

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s

Next message: Michael D'Errico: "GB18030 (was Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode)"
Previous message: Doug Ewell: "Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode"
Maybe in reply to: Andreas Prilop: "Re: FYI: Google blog on Unicode"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 08 2010 - 20:59:51 CST