From kfm-devel Wed Feb 27 12:24:37 2002 From: Lars Knoll Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:24:37 +0000 To: kfm-devel Subject: Re: Fwd: gb2312 encoding removed? X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kfm-devel&m=101481289403530 On Wednesday 20 February 2002 23:29, David Faure wrote: > Hi Lars, > sorry to spam you again... > This is quite precise report on a problem with the gb2312 encoding > (especially in web pages). I tried the page mentioned below, and display seems perfect for me.=20 QTextCodec::codecForName( "gb2312" ) does IMO also return the correct cod= ec. Lars > > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Subject: Re: [kde] browser problem > Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:56:15 +0100 > From: Pablo Saratxaga > To: David Faure > > Kaixo! > > It seems there is a problem with simplified Chinese ("gb2312" encoding > declared in the headers) in konqueror. > > > You can reproduce it for example with the pages > http://www.linux-mandrake.com/zh/ or http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/chn/index.= html > > note that I've defined in settings->browser->fonts a font for each font > type (serif, sans, etc) for the gb2312 encoding. > > > Could it be that KDE has dropped "gb2312" and now uses "GKB" instead ? > (they are upward compatible I think). > > There are however two big problems with that approach: > > - most web pages use "gb2312" (and not "gkb") as their charset declarat= ion > - most of the (freely) available fonts have the characters needed for > the gb2312 encoding but miss the extra characters needed for gbk. > > it is therefore important that KDE continues to support gb2312. > I even think it would be a good idea to backfall to gb2312 fonts under = X > if no gbk font is available (it won't be perfect, but in most than 90% > of the cases the result will be unnoticeable; anyways even in the worst > case it would be better to have some undisplayed characters than having > all characters undisplayed). > > I did the tests with kdebase-2.2.2-52mdk