Subject: iconv vs. libiconv, was Re: Patch: Fix for Bug 1164, 2nd try
From: Andrew Dunbar (hippietrail@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue May 22 2001 - 05:42:41 CDT
Vlad Harchev wrote:
>
> On Tue, 22 May 2001, ha shao wrote:
>
>
> > Patch to add codepage items for Chinese. Really useful?
>
> It would be nice to commit it.
>
> Also everywhere, CJK hackers told us that not all iconv
> implementations know "CP950" and "CP936" under these names - if it's true for
> iconv AW is linked with, fallback charset names "BIG5" and "GB2312" should be
> used.
According to the libiconv docs the encodings are not exactly
equivalent. The same goes for "CP932"/SJIS and possibly the korean
encoding. Is there a good reason not to just use libiconv on all
platforms since we know it's a good implementation and know what
it does and does not have. It seems a small price to pay for a
nice gain in determinism.
Andrew Dunbar.
-- http://linguaphile.sourceforge.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:06 CDT