Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> 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. >> 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?
