Subject: Re: iconv vs. libiconv, was Re: Patch: Fix for Bug 1164, 2nd try
From: Vlad Harchev (hvv@hippo.ru)
Date: Tue May 22 2001 - 11:48:49 CDT
On Tue, 22 May 2001, Andrew Dunbar wrote:
> 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
AFAIR CJK hackers suggested this - it seems a reasonable fallback. But yes,
these encodings are strictly speaking different.
> 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.
At least Linux's libiconv seems to be better (extensible at runtime, for
example, etc) than libiconv - and unix people seem not to like code bloat..
Best regards,
-Vlad
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:06 CDT