Mingye Wang added the comment: > Advice for final user:
This seems something worthy of adding to the codecs doc as a footnote. Perhaps something like "(deprecated) ... gb2312 is an obsolete encoding from the 1980s. Use gbk or gb18030 instead." will do. > libiconv-1.14 is also using the wrong version. Just a side note on the right/wrongfulness of libiconv: I have reported the GB18030 incompatibility as a libiconv bug.[1] From the replies, I learnt that 1) what libiconv is using currently is a then-official mapping published on ftp.unicode.org; 2) vendor implementations of gb2312 differed historically. I have updated the corresponding section[2] on Wikipedia to include these old references. [1]: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-libiconv/2016-09/msg00004.html [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GB_2312#Two_implementations_of_GB2312 Still, being old and common does not necessarily mean being correct, as Ma Lin have demonstrated by showing the character semantics. To reflect this in a better-supported manner, I have added names for the glyphs in question from GB2312-80 to [2]. ---------- nosy: +Artoria2e5 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue24036> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
