Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Jun 2005 01:34:13 +0200 | From | Lukasz Stelmach <> | Subject | Re: A Great Idea (tm) about reimplementing NLS. |
| |
Lennart Sorensen napisał(a):
>>And it is good in a way, however, i think kernel level translation >>should be also possible. Either done by a code in each filsystem or by >>some layer above it. > > What do you do if the underlying filesystem can not store some unicode > characters that are allowed on others?
That's why UTF-8 is suggested. UTF-8 has been developed to "fool" the software that need not to be aware of unicodeness of the text it manages to handle it without any hickups *and* to store in the text information about multibyte characters.What characters exactly you do mean? NULL? There is no NULL byte in any UTF-8 string except the one which terminates it.
> VFAT uses unicode? I thought it used the same codepage silyness as FAT > did, since after all ti was just supposed to be a long filename > extension to FAT. Do they use unicode in the long filenames only?
Yes, it uses unicode. And dos codepages in short ones. To prove this take a vfat floppy and mount it. touch(1) a file on it that has some non latin1 characters. Unmount the floppy then do dd if=/dev/fd0 of=/tmp/floppy bs=1024 count=512. While it's done take some hex editor/viewer and seek the latin1-complaint part of the filename in the floppy file (search for uppercase string). Righ above the short filename you'll find multibyte long one.
> I think UDF is a better filesystem for many types of media since it is > able to me more gently to the sectors storing the meta data than VFAT > ever will be.
I've tried cd packet writing with UDF and it gives insane overhead of about 20%. What metadata you'd like to store for example on your flashdrive or a floppy disk?
-- Było mi bardzo miło. Trzecia pospolita klęska, [...] >Łukasz< Już nie katolicka lecz złodziejska. (c)PP
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |