Re: utf-16le vs utf-16-le

> Absolutely. I do agree on all this -- it was the stark
contrast of not
> using BOM sometimes in utf-16 to using BOM in UTF-8
what caused ummm...
> some emotions 
>
>> A BOM in UTF-8 is another matter, of course...
>
> Both things taken together make the work of art.

I have nothing to say about why Windows adds BOM to UTF-8
files,
but Emacs once saved me much time of debugging the problem
when
mobile terminals failed to display files stored by the users
of
Windows Notepad that adds BOM to UTF-8 files.  In earlier
versions
of Emacs (I don't remember in which exactly), Emacs
displayed the BOM
character at the beginning of the buffer, so it was easy to
see where
the problem was.

Unfortunately, now in Emacs 23 I see no BOM marks displayed
at the
beginning of the buffer.  I think Emacs should have a visual
indication
for such hidden characters.

-- 
Juri Linkov
http://www.jurta.org/emac
s/