Talk:GBK (character encoding): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:35, 7 July 2009

China Unassessed

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 13:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Official Code Tables?

Does anyone know of any official coding tables? Implementations differ on details and how many characters are covered. —Długosz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Długosz (talk • contribs) 10:22, February 5, 2007 (UTC)

i took a look at http://www.iana.org/assignments/charset-reg/GBK which seems to make microsofts code page 936 the authoritive definition of GBK at least as far as the IANA is concerned. The "Relationship to other encodings" in this article speaks as if there is some other defintion of GBK which in some way differs from the MS one but does not actually define what that is. http://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V51_HTML/MAN/MAN5/0020____.HTM meanwhile claims that "GBK is therefore defined as a normative annex of GB13000.1-93.". This article is getting an {{accuracy}} tag until this issue is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 21:12, March 15, 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT GBK has always been defined as identical to Microsoft 936. Of course this varies from gb2312. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk • contribs) 17:50, May 21, 2007 (UTC)

Since the article now contains the reference to the Chinese standard defining GBK, Plugwash's accuracy tag is no longer appropriate, and I'm removing it. When I have a moment, I'll add a note on what the differences between GBK and CP 936 are. JCBradfield (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 22:04, 11 October 2007 edit Jdlh (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 1,736 edits m →Official Code Tables?: Tag 3 unsigned or undated entries. ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:35, 7 July 2009 edit undo JCBradfield (talk \| contribs) 64 edits →Official Code Tables?: accuracy tag has been dealt with Next edit →
Line 10:		Line 10:

	AFAICT GBK has always been defined as identical to Microsoft 936. Of course this varies from gb2312. {{unsigned\|131.107.0.73\|17:50, May 21, 2007}}		AFAICT GBK has always been defined as identical to Microsoft 936. Of course this varies from gb2312. {{unsigned\|131.107.0.73\|17:50, May 21, 2007}}

			Since the article now contains the reference to the Chinese standard defining GBK, Plugwash's accuracy tag is no longer appropriate, and I'm removing it. When I have a moment, I'll add a note on what the differences between GBK and CP 936 are. [[User:JCBradfield\|JCBradfield]] ([[User talk:JCBradfield\|talk]]) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)