Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:19:26 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: A Great Idea (tm) about reimplementing NLS. |
| |
Hi!
> > Actually the day we have rm utf-8-ed, we have a problem. Someone will > > create two files that have same utf name, encoded differently, and > > will be in trouble. Remember old > \* "hack"? utf-8 makes variation > > possible... > > They are different to POSIX as they are different byte sequences
Does POSIX really say that all weird characters must be accepted in path name?
> > If we are serious about utf-8 support in ext3, we should return > > -EINVAL if someone passes non-canonical utf-8 string. > > That would ironically not be standards compliant
I don't see how we can claim ext3 is utf-8 then. If application vendors believed us and accepted that ext3 filenames are in utf-8, they'd do wrong thing because kernel is perfectly willing to feed them non-utf-8 things.
Pavel -- teflon -- maybe it is a trademark, but it should not be. - 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/
| |