Bug 223911 - Simplified Chinese locale priorty is not very suitable.
Summary: Simplified Chinese locale priorty is not very suitable.
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 98798
Alias: None
Product: konqueror
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: 4.3.4
Platform: Gentoo Packages Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Konqueror Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-01-23 12:49 UTC by Kjang Kwreuug-Kuq
Modified: 2012-01-13 07:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Kjang Kwreuug-Kuq 2010-01-23 12:49:18 UTC
Version:           4.3.4 (using KDE 4.3.4)
Compiler:          GCC 4.3.4 SSP and PIE enabled
OS:                Linux
Installed from:    Gentoo Packages

The priorty of the locale in the "Set encoding" about Simplified Chinese is not very suitable. In fact, the GB18030 contains the GBK, and the GBK contains the GB2132 (I mean compatible). 

However, the Konqueror received a Simplified Chinese web page and judge it into GB2132 first and will never try GBK or GB18030, which can break some pages which contains some Traditional Chinese characters. I suggest that the Konqueror should try GB18030 first and then GBK and GB2132 (for those do not locale-gen their GBK/GB18030, this might be necessary, I guess. If Konqueror does not need those locale information, then GB18030 can be the only one solution for the Simplified Chinese.)

This can also apply to the E-mail to the Kmail, so if it is necessary, maybe KMail team can be CCed here.

Thank you for your work and your response here. Hope this can be a little helpful.

Reproducable: Always

1. Install a Konqueror.
2. Open any Chinese website which introduce a Japanese song or other which uses Traditional Chinese characters. You will see something weird.
(Here is an example: http://220.170.79.105/html/anime/20100120/70850.html)
Comment 1 Jekyll Wu 2011-12-30 14:49:33 UTC
I think this report is basically the same as bug 98798 .
Comment 2 Dawit Alemayehu 2012-01-13 07:24:43 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 98798 ***