Re: cp932, cp949, c950 definitions

[Jason Rumney]

Dave Love wrote:

> The coding systems cp932, cp949, c950 have been added as aliases.  Are
> these known to be correct according to a reliable reference?

Obviously not judging by your reaction. I beleive the mappings from the 
standard encodings to the DOS/Windows codepages are all correct, but the 
codepages include extra characters that do not map back into the 
coding-systems they are aliases for. After reading a bit about the 
differences the only one that seems like it might be problematic is 
cp949, which contains "unified Hangeul", which might be in common use.

The reason for adding these aliases is to get clipboard support working 
out of the box on Windows easily. Even if the codepages are incomplete, 
it is better than the current situation of assuming latin-1 for the 
clipboard.