Re: iconv vs. libiconv, was Re: Patch: Fix for Bug 1164, 2nd try

[ha shao]

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:33:46PM +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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