On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 05:50:42PM +0300, Anton Tagunov wrote: > What we have is an ambigeous name. If we were meaning the 8 bit > encoding (that has a MIME name) it should have been GB2312, not > GB 2312.
This has been raised before, at: http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00819.html > But we have the 7-bit encoding. What name should it have not > to be mistaken for the other one? ....in which I proposed to rename gb2312 to gb2312-raw to avoid the ambiguity. The *other* 8-bit MIME encoding is euc-cn. And yes, this is in disagreement to iconv and hc's conventions, in which gb2312 is an alias to euc-cn, and the raw gb2312 is not directly accessible: * EUC-CN = GB2312 We implement this because it is the widely used representation of simplified Chinese. Thus, the "=?GB2312?B?0LvQu8Tjo6E=?=" spam received by NI-S is not encoded in perl's GB2312, but is "Thank you!" in EUC-CN. Executive summary: Encode.pm isn't just for transport use, so we have a namespace clash; neither GB2312 is 'more right' than the other interpretation. But as the main use of Encode.pm would be (imho) in IO disciplines and "use encoding;", I'd suggest: - Retain the file gb2312.enc. - Alias /gb-?2312/i to 'euc-cn'. - Make a 'gb2312-raw' to point to 'gb2312.enc'. Makes sense? /Autrijus/
msg00805/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
