W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2005

Re: Suggest to support the character encoding of "gbk"

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:52:41 +0900
To: Xu Xiaodong <xd_xu@hotmail.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050125095241.GA7787@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005, Xu Xiaodong wrote:
> Character Encoding Override in effect!
> The detected character encoding "gbk" has been suppressed and "gb2312"
> used instead.
> The url of my homepage is
> "http://learn.tsinghua.edu.cn/homepage/981852/index.html".
> which means I use the Character Encoding "gbk". I don't know why "gbk"
> is not supported.

> In China, "gbk" is quite normally used in character encoding and is
> even more widely used than "gb18030". I hope your team could consider
> my suggestion to support "gbk" with the lager character set and it is
> maturer and also better supported than "gb18030".

I am not a charset registration expert, but the authoritative entity in
this matter seems to disagree with you on whether GBK is more mature
than GB18030.

Quoting http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-reg/GBK

     As the GBK code space is limited, it cannot support the full code
    space of ISO 10646.  To remedy this shortcoming, the GBK
    specification has since been "replaced" by the mandatory
    GB 18030-2000 standard (GB18030).

That page also states:

    COMMON    (Still commonly used)
    OBSOLETE  (Superceded by GB18030)

So I suppose the validator should support it (?), even though hopefully
the common practice of using GBK should slowly disappear. Based on this
information, I would probably suggest you should use gb18030 anyway.

Thank you.

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2005 09:52:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:44 UTC