Re: [PATCH v10 7/9] convert: check for detectable errors in UTF encodings

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 7, 2018, 22:32 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa7vjzfcp.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <B001E8E2-9C98-4136-87A3-4425C50E90DB@gmail.com>

Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@gmail.com> writes:

> I also would have liked to advise "UTF-16" instead of "UTF16" as
> you suggested. However, that required a few more lines and I wanted
> to keep the change to a minimum. I feel this could be added in a
> follow up patch.

I'd say the whole upcase thing belongs to such a follow-up patch if that is the case.

Show 6 quoted lines

>> On the other hand, if we are not enforcing such a policy decision
>> but merely explaining a way to work around this check, then it may
>> be better to give a variant with the smaller difference from the
>> original (i.e. without up-casing).
>
> See example mentioned above: "Utf-16". How would you handle that?

Dropping LE suffix from "Utf-16LE" or "Utf16LE" would yield "Utf-16" or "Utf16" if the advise message does not force policy, or "UTF-16" in the canoical form if it does. Is there a problem?