From: Markus Scherer (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Apr 10 2005 - 15:16:37 CST
On 4/6/05, Frank Yung-Fong Tang <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Why do you care about GBK. GBK is not a national standard nor a de
> factor standard.
I think it's actually quite fair to say that GBK _is_ a de facto
standard because it has been implemented and used a lot, including as
windows-936, the Windows system codepage for Chinese. While GB 18030
is required in software sold in China since 2000 or so, there is a
significant installed base predating that. Because of that, the
designers of GB 18030 made it mostly compatible with GBK.
Ken may or may not be able to sneak GB 18030 codes into GBK software.
If the GBK software rejects illegal byte sequences, then he can't use
GB 18030 codes that aren't also in GBK (i.e., 4-byters).
-- Opinions expressed here may not reflect my company's positions unless otherwise noted.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 10 2005 - 15:18:20 CST