search

caomike / poster-extension

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/poster-extension
0 stars 0 forks source link

Support charset GB2312? #32

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Please excuse my poor english...
I wish you understand my question...8-(

What steps will reproduce the problem?
browse webpage(http://www.baidu.com/) that charset encode in GB2312，poster
will display unrecognizable character.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
I wish poster can recognize that page charset encode in GB2312

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
poster-2.0.0/Firefox 3.5/Windows XP

Thank you in advance

Original issue reported on code.google.com by zhouh...@gmail.com on 13 Oct 2009 at 7:06

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
What character is it not displaying?  I see that the page comes back with the 
proper HTTP charset parameter 
on the content-type header.  As such, the text value received should be 
properly translated.

On my Mac, it seems like the characters are being interpreted correctly.  Of 
course, you may not be able to see 
each character depending on whether you have an appropriate font.

So, in the end, I need more specifics.  Exactly what character in what place in 
the document is not being 
displayed correct.

BTW, this extension uses Firefox's facilities to display the text and decode 
the HTTP response.  As such, this 
may be a Firefox issue.

Original comment by alexmilo...@gmail.com on 13 Oct 2009 at 3:50

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
Today I changed WindowsXP "control panel"->"language" from chinese to english ,
characters are being interpreted correctly , I try changed back (from english to
chinese), it still are interpreted correctly ...

Perhaps this problem cause by my os-environment setting. 

Thanks again

Original comment by zhouh...@gmail.com on 14 Oct 2009 at 1:32

GoogleCodeExporter commented 8 years ago 
That will certainly make a difference.  The content that I show is what Firefox 
itself interpreted.

Original comment by alexmilo...@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2010 at 5:28