[cvsnt] Re: UTF conversion issues after upgrade to 2.0.34

[Tony Hoyle]

Olaf Groeger wrote:

> 
> But be aware that this must be UTF-16 BE including BOM (0xff 0xfe). All
> other UTF-16 (LE and/or no BOM) will be silently damaged.
> 
LE isn't common on intel systems (in fact it's basically unheard of).  The 
file is still a perfectly valid Unicode file - the BOM is part of the 
standard, precisely to avoid the problems distinguishing between LE and BE.

If you want the exact file use binary mode... you lose merging though.

Tony