Here's a decent discussion of the challenges of GB 18030:
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/unicode/library/u-china.html?dwzon
e=unicode
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan(_at_)dankohn(_dot_)com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
Randomly generated quote:
As the British Constitution is the most subtle organism which has
proceeded from the womb and long gestation of progressive history, so
the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful
work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. -
W.E. Gladstone
-----Original Message-----
From: ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com
[mailto:ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 08:11
To: Sam Roberts
Cc: ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: RFC 2047 and gatewaying
Quoteing ned+ietf-822(_at_)mrochek(_dot_)com, on Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at
08:03:02PM
-0800:
OTOH, one hears rumours that the Chinese are not altogether happy.
Hardly a rumor. The Chinese dislike Unicode, or perhaps more
accurately the
UTF-8 and UTF-16 encodings of Unicode, sufficiently to have defined
a new
Why?
I suppose the reason was to have something that is backwards compatible
with
existing, widely used multibyte encodings for simplified Chinese. I've
heard
GB18080 referred to as UTF-GBK on occasion.
But I'm really not the right person to ask about this. As Russ already
pointed
out, the entire charset space is hugely political. And I'm not privy to
the
political discussions that led to this being done. I just happened to
have had
to write code to support the outcome.
Ned