Re: q about gb 2312/gbk

[Markus Scherer <markus.scherer@jtcsv.com>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> are all these charset names you have seen used "in the wild" where MIME
> charset names should be used...?

The one I am concerned about, GBK, is the same as Windows codepage 936 (simplified chinese). It is the default codepage on Windows in China, and it was the latest specification (though not "standard") from China.
It is in widespread use elsewhere, and I assumed that it is also in use in chinese email, by virtue of market penetration.

Repeat: "I assumed" - and I expected to find it in the IANA charset names list, but it's not there.

However, I do not have direct evidence of its use in email (or in other MIME charset places). I just looked at my Outlook Express, and it offers two encodings for Simplified Chinese: GB 2312 and HZ, _not_ GBK.
OE does use IANA names for these two, I just tried it.

(It would not surprise me if OE mislabeled GBK as GB 2312, but again I do not have any evidence for it.)

So, maybe this is not an issue. I am more on a "fact-finding mission" with my questions than trying to register new-old things. I would rather not register what's not used so that people don't get the idea to use it :-)

markus