Re: Is there anybody interested in supporting GB18030 in debian?
On 23 Jan 2001, zhaoway wrote:
> <suzhe@gnuchina.org> writes:
> > On 22 Jan 2001, zhaoway wrote:
> > > It's not just locale. Say, if I want read Chinese and Japanese at the
> > > same time on the same XTerm, UTF-8 will do it, GB18030 won't. Glibc
> > > can of course even support GB2312, but if XTerm use GB2312 locale, it
> > > won't be able to read Japanese (whatever encoding) then. So you will
> > > have to use UTF-8. Then Gb18030 has quirk.
> >
> > GB18030 of course can do it! I can edit Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
> > Russian and many other language in a gedit window with GB18030 locale!
>
> Oh, yeah. To summarize it, you have better chance to bet all of the
> other part of the world will most probably prefer UTF-8 than GB18030.
One thing I see in Chinese reports about GB18030 is how it will allow one
to write in languages of the "xiaoshu minzu" minority groups, like
Mongolian (traditional script, written vertically), Uighur (Arabic), Yi
(modern syllabary), etc. At least the Mongolian and Uighur cases are not
simple for manipulating and display--does GB18030 say anything about how
to handle them? For the Arabic script, there are plenty of experts who
do not know anything about GB18030, but they know about Unicode, UTF-8,
etc.
> So, again, my question is, what does GB18030 provide to us, which
> cannot be solved with UTF-8, or Unicode surrogates? (The current
> version of Unicode is not perfect, I agree. But there're no fixed
Actually, I don't see much difference between surrogates in Unicode
(especially UTF-16 encoding) and the four-byte-long codepoints in GB18030.
Thomas Chan
tc31@cornell.edu
--
| This message was re-posted from debian-chinese-big5@lists.debian.org
| and converted from big5 to gb2312 by an automatic gateway.
Reply to: