Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:43:11 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Bruno Haible <haible AT ilog DOT fr>
cc: Juan Manuel Guerrero <ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De>,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: DJGPP specific patch for libiconv-1.5.1
In-Reply-To: <15002.30384.227166.565569@honolulu.ilog.fr>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010226174141.24373I-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Bruno Haible wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> > 
> > > 	# Chinese
> > > 	echo "zh_CN GBK"
> > > 	echo "zh_TW CP950" # not CP938 ??
> > 
> > Is this Big5 or GB encoding?  The name GBK suggests the latter.
> > AFAIK, Chinese GB is codepage 936, Big5 is indeed 950.
> 
> zh_TW normally uses Big5. But that MSDOS reference page mentioned
> CP938, and I don't know what that is: there are no conversion tables
> for it.

My information is that Big5 is cp950, I verified that with Chinese users 
(the DJGPP port of Emacs uses that).

> > > 	# Korean
> > > 	echo "kr CP949"    # not CP934 ??
> > > 	echo "kr_KR CP949" # not CP934 ??
> > 
> > AFAIK, 934 is correct.
> 
> Same here. I've never heard about CP934. CP949 is much more likely.

I'm very sorry, I meant to say that 949 is correct.