Re: [encoding] "gb18030 ranges" have problematic definitions (#17)

Well then, here is another example of a problematic code point, and this time it doesn't appear in "gb18030 index": U+E5E5.

    58853 ---> 19043, 0x9FA6 ---> 19043 + 58853 - 40870 ---> 37026

but:

    37026 ---> 33550, 0xE865 ---> 59493 + 37026 - 33550 ---> 62969

and 69292 (F5F9 differs from E5E5).

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/encoding/issues/17#issuecomment-158931445