From: Frank W. <wg...@ya...> - 2008-05-22 12:53:01
|
> It works! Now I think utf-8 version is better than the gb2312 one from > Chinese translation prospective. I agree utf-8 will bring other benefit as > well, but I still need to do a little bit more interoperability test with > the popular mail providers here to make sure, as the users are most likely > to interact with them other than the one I've tested. I'll finish that > ASAP. I've finished some test against 9 popular email providers in China. They're 126.com, 163.com, sina.com, suhu.com, yahoo.cn, tom.cn, yeah.net, gmail.com and qq.com. Unfortunately, nearly half of them has difficulty interact with UTF-8 SM-1.4.15-rc1. They're sina.com, 163.com, yeah.net and qq.com. The mails from them are all displayed corrupted in the new SM. I noticed that their subject in headers are containing '=?gbk?' in common, and their subject/body/attachment can be displayed correctly if browser encoding set to gb2312/gbk/gb18030. This probably means gbk encoding is not converted to utf-8 correctly. For yahoo.cn, only the Chinese attachment name sent to SM is corrupted, the body and subject are alright. I'll attach two sample headers here. |