Subject: Re: iconv vs. libiconv, was Re: Patch: Fix for Bug 1164, 2nd try
From: ha shao (hashao@chinese.com)
Date: Wed May 23 2001 - 02:02:04 CDT
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:33:46PM +1000, hippietrail@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > I've looked at where this function is called and it seems to me this
> > > opens the door to lossy conversions. Should this function also use
> > > some form of fallback so that "BIG5" is only returned when iconv
> > > doesn't support "CP950"? Or maybe this function is ambiguous and
> > > really should be two separate functions?
> >
> > This is what I've suggested in another mail. Yes, please replace
> > the mapping to a fallback call/macros.
>
> Could somebody more familiar with the relevant code implement this?
> I don't think I know it well enough. Especially Unix iconv
> implementation issues.
>
I will do it then. Just copy and paste as I can see. :)
-- Best regard hashao
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Sat May 26 2001 - 03:51:06 CDT