Talk:GB 18030

message: now we have an understandable explanation in english from sun anyone fancy expanding this article? Plugwash 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: now we have an understandable explanation in english 

message: according to http://www.sac.gov.cn/, the 2005 version of this standard was released at Nov. 8,2005, effective May 1, 2006.--Skyfiler 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: got anymore detail? is it just official incorporation of stuff introduced by unicode since the original standard? Plugwash 17:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No more tech details on the website, and search yield no results :(--Skyfiler 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GB 18030-2005? 

message: >which is easily sufficient to cover Unicode's 1,114,112 (17*65536) code points.
this counted the 2048 surrogate points which don't need to be encoded, e.g. un UTF-16 you can't encode U+D800 as this isn't a valid real code point:
where does this figure come from. I undestand that UTF-16 can encode all code points but it only covers 1,112,064:
  BMP is 0x10000 - (0xE000 - 0xD800), i.e. don't count surrogate code points
      = 0xF800 (63488)
  The rest have 20 bits in UTF-16 four bytes sequences (0x1000 is subtracted)
      = 2 ^ 20 = 1048576 (0x100000)
  0xF800 + 0x100000 = 0x10F800 (1,112,064)
::Sorry i counted the overall range of code points and didn't account for the ones that are permanently reserved for uses other than encoding characters (e.g. the surrogates you mentioned).  Plugwash 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode code points 

message: Can we see a section or subsection on compatibility with other formats, or put the information in the lede? It sounds like the code page is compatible with Unicode, but I don't know for sure if what I'm reading is worded such that other information I'm not seeing would contradict it in some situations. It would be much less confusing if it were stated exactly where all the relevant information will be. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on compatibility? 

message: Not sure about on the OS side, but Chinese sites (Sina, Taobao to name a few) have recently been moving towards UTF-8, usually from GB 2312. --207.38.206.45 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese sites moving towards UTF8 

message: I'm not an expert, but digging on the web, and the box to the right side of the page in this article, suggests the text in the History section uses the value 1E37 when it should be 1E3F.  A GB18030 expert should check this and fix it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.1.38 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in History section about character mapping changes from GB18030-2000 to GB18030-2005? 

message: To answer my question, I know it will work with all, since it covers all of Unicode, and no, it's not actually commonly used in Japan, but is it as or more space-efficient, as the other encodings used in Asia? It seems better than UTF-16 at least for those languages, for efficiency. UTF-8 isn't bad either (assuming e.g. some mixed in ASCII, for e.g. HTML, but so is this format). comp.arch (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this encoding good for Japanese, or even all East-Asian languages? 

message: [|SO10646]g 2400:AC40:A47:874A:8D1A:55BB:9EB8:C8D2 (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [|SO10646]ghost 

message: Japnis
Hhdhs
Hdhdh 103.143.89.226 (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  doremon carton  Hindi  

message: In light of this recent update, it might be interesting to know, and clarify in the article, to what extent GB 18030 continues to be used in parallel or in preference to UTF-8. Earlier on there was some suggestion Chinese websites were moving to UTF-8, but what about most Chinese hosts (PCs, tablets, smartphones, etc.). Do most Chinese users use UTF-8 or GB 18030? If the former, then exactly what is the continued relevance of GB 18030? If the latter, then how does most of China using GB 18030 work in practice, given that most of the world seems to be moving to UTF-8? ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued relevance of GB 18030