Re: cp1252 decoder implementation

From: Masatoshi Kimura <>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:27:46 +0900

(2012/11/22 1:58), Shawn Steele wrote:
> We aren’t going change names (since that’ll break
> anyone already using them), we probably won’t recognize new names (since
> anyone trying to use a new name wouldn’t work on millions of existing
> computers, so no one would add it).
Hey, why Microsoft changed "unicodeFFFE" to "unicodeFEFF"?
What's the benefit of sacrificing the backword compatibility?
According to Michael S. Kaplan, once some Microsoft people (including
you) said that they wouldn't change it because of compatibility.
I admit your have a valid point, but why don't you do what you says?

Received on Wed Nov 21 2012 - 14:32:09 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Nov 21 2012 - 14:32:20 CST