Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:06:51 GMT | From | John Bradford <> | Subject | Re: UTF-8 practically vs. theoretically in the VFS API (was: Re: JFS default behavior) |
| |
Quote from Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>: > > > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, John Bradford wrote: > > > > Why not: > > I'll start with the first one. That already kills the rest. > > > * State that filenames are strings of 32-bit words. UCS-4 should be > > the prefered format for storing text in them, but storing legacy > > encodings in the low 8 bits is acceptable, (but a Bad Thing for new > > installations). > > UCS-4 is as braindamaged as UCS-2 was, and for all the same reasons. > > It's bloated, non-expandable, and not backwards compatible.
Which I hardly see as real pain for filenames, especially as I covered the backward compatibility bit anyway, and wanting to expand beyond 2^31 characters isn't really on my to-do list at the moment, which just leaves filename bloat, which is laughably trivial in at least 99.9% of cases, and probably just a minor inconvenience the other 0.1%.
But, I don't think I care anymore, anyway, clearly we are going to end up with UTF-8 filenames everywhere, and security vulnerabilities to go with them, and as long as I'm aware of that fact, I should be OK.
John. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |