Subject: Re: iconv vs. libiconv, was Re: Patch: Fix for Bug 1164, 2nd try
From: ha shao (hashao@chinese.com)
Date: Tue May 22 2001 - 05:53:16 CDT
On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 08:42:41PM +1000, hippietrail@yahoo.com wrote:
> Vlad Harchev wrote:
>
> 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.
>
For CP936, it is practically what everyone use for GBK. So now, the
iconv in glibc use CP936 for its GBK table. It might be okey to Alias
CP936 to GBK instead of GB2312. GBK is an extension to GB2312, compatible
but with a lot more code points.
The most widely used Big5 table used is CP950 now. The Big5 table for
iconv in glibc also based on that table.
Of cause if there is already a CP936 or CP950, it is better to use
the codepages. That's why the fallback is involved. Now I think, the mapping
table for codepage->charset should use the fallback instead of a direct
mapping?
-- Best regard hashao
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:06 CDT