(2010/12/10 18:14), "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> We should try to get a better overall idea of what "UTF-16" and so on
> are for. I asked some questions at the very end of [ruby-core:33461].
> Yui, can you try to give answers? I hope this will help having a
> general discussion of the issues involved.

Current implementation is what I thought to be.

> My main questions here are:
> A) Which one of the above is the current Ruby implementation effort
>  (the above patch and a few related ones) targetting?

This is, 2b) XML strictly requires a BOM.
Because the spec (2a) collides the real (2c).

> B) How complete is that implementation (thought to be)?

Current one is completed one.

> C) What about other implementation needs?

Nothing, in current situation.

> D) What can we do to make sure users have at least a chance of
>   understanding what "UTF-16" in Ruby is good for?

This is open problem, but so I implement it and am seeing user's reactions.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse / airemix.jp>