Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Antoine Pitrou wrote: >> Martin v. Löwis <martin <at> v.loewis.de> writes: >>> Despite there being also an error handler called "surrogates". >> People, perhaps we could end all the bikeshedding and call one of those handlers >> "surrogates-pass" and the other "surrogates-escape", which sounds quite faithful >> to what they actually /do/? > > The problem with these bike-shedding discussions is that you cannot stop > them with a proposal. People will counter-propose. > > I would be willing to accept a ruling from someone who a) is a native > speaker of English, and b) has demonstrated to fully understand what > these do, and c) has understood why I insist on calling it utf8b. I qualify with a). I believe I understand c) but, as explained in my other post, I do not think your reason applies. In fact, I think concern for naming rights might suggest that you *not* reuse the name for something different. I would have to learn more about the existing 'surrogates' handler to judge Antione's suggestion 'surrogates-pass'. 'Surrogates-escape' is pretty good for the new handler since, to my understanding, it 'escapes' 'bad bytes' by prefixing them with bits that push them to the surrogates plane. I have been supportive of the idea and, as well as I understood them, the particulars of your proposal, from the beginning. Reusing the name of a codec as the name of an error-handler confused me and I believe it will confuse others, even though, but also because, the error handler was extracted and generalized from the codec. Terry Jan Reedy
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4