Re: [whatwg/encoding] Editorial: add a common term for UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE (#228)

@ricea approved this pull request.

lgtm

I haven't checked for other places that could be changed.

> @@ -3359,11 +3360,10 @@ https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6986789/why-are-some-bytes-prefixed-with-0xf
 
 <h2 id=browser-ui>Browser UI</h2>
 
-<p>Browsers are encouraged to not enable overriding the encoding of a resource. If such a
-feature is nonetheless present, browsers should not offer either
-<a>UTF-16BE</a> or <a>UTF-16LE</a> as option due to aforementioned security
-issues. Browsers also should disable this feature if the resource was decoded using either
-<a>UTF-16BE</a> or <a>UTF-16LE</a>.
+<p>Browsers are encouraged to not enable overriding the encoding of a resource. If such a feature is
+nonetheless present, browsers should not offer <a>UTF-16BE/LE</a> as option due to aforementioned

Should it be "as an option"?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/pull/228#pullrequestreview-484099376