|
| Re: XML editor encoding support [message #52961 is a reply to message #52663] |
Tue, 09 November 2004 15:45   |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:05:03 +0900, Pak, Young-rok <refactorer@naver.com> wrote:
> XML editor doesn't support all java encodings. I need MS949 encoding, but
> it's not supported.
>
It should, when you say its not supported, are you getting an error message?
Or, just not decoding correctly? Are you using any exotic VM?
(And, I assume you have an xml declaration that specifies the encoding="ms949"?)
There might be a bug somewhere, but in principle, we should support anything
the Java VM supports. If you find that's not the case, a bugzilla report with
details and sample input, and maybe even a screen shot of error output (or
correct display!) would help us not to lose track of the problem.
|
|
|
| Re: XML editor encoding support [message #52985 is a reply to message #52961] |
Tue, 09 November 2004 20:54 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
oh, I'm sorry. it was my misunderstanding. MS949 xml documents is displayed
well. just preference has problem. encoding selection for creating files
does not contain MS949. it's not critical issue.
"David Williams" <david_williams@us.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:opsg7tajjeac05ss@news.eclipse.org...
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:05:03 +0900, Pak, Young-rok <refactorer@naver.com>
wrote:
>
> > XML editor doesn't support all java encodings. I need MS949 encoding,
but
> > it's not supported.
> >
>
> It should, when you say its not supported, are you getting an error
message?
> Or, just not decoding correctly? Are you using any exotic VM?
> (And, I assume you have an xml declaration that specifies the
encoding="ms949"?)
>
> There might be a bug somewhere, but in principle, we should support
anything
> the Java VM supports. If you find that's not the case, a bugzilla report
with
> details and sample input, and maybe even a screen shot of error output (or
> correct display!) would help us not to lose track of the problem.
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03449 seconds
Home