Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Valeriy E. Ushakov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/17/2004 12:46:50
On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 13:00:08 -0800, Jason Thorpe wrote:
> > And the easiest thing to do for ffs is to interpret the stored
> > data as utf8 always, which fits very well with Valerieys
> > suggestion.
> I agree completely that UTF-8 is the ideal conversion target for
> kernel<->userland interaction. I *think* this is what Mac OS X does,
> as well.
But our userland is still far from being utf-8 friendly,
unfortunately. So for the time being I'd prefer a working "legacy"
Or, rather, a solution that would allow for any conversion table to be
supplied and let the kernel be agnostic about the actual charset -
making users responisble for ensuring that the charsets match. Thus
users can continue to use their legacy 8-bit encodings that are
supported by exisitng userland. And developers will be able to work
on utf-8 support. :)
wscons internals is an example of "unicodification" that went half-way
and was left cold in the wind. I don't want filesystem stuff to end
up in a similar situation.
email@example.com | Zu Grunde kommen
http://www.ptc.spbu.ru/~uwe/ | Ist zu Grunde gehen