Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Also "UTF16" or other spelling >> the platform may support but this code fails to recognise will go >> unchecked. > > That is true. However, I would assume all iconv implementations use the > same encoding names for UTF encodings, no? That means UTF16 would never be > valid. Would you agree? After seeing "UTF16" and others in "iconv -l | grep -i utf" output, I am not sure what you mean by "Would you agree?" People can say in their .gitattributes file that this path is in "UTF16" without dash and that is what will be fed to this coe, no?
