Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: None <>
From: Martin Husemann <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 11/19/2004 09:32:06
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 11:42:48PM +0300, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> Agreed.  That's why I've been talking about transcoding, not encoding.
> No intermediate representation, just a de/mangling scheme

I still haven't understood your proposal - sorry to be a pain.

> I also think that the kernel should be as much agnostic about
> encodings as possible.

Very much agreed.

What I understand is
 - the current cd9660 code is plain stupid wrong for the non-joliet
   case (should just pass out the stream of bytes, just like ffs)
 - the current cd9660 code is still wrong for juliet - it should
   transcode to utf-8 (I'm not realy sure you agree on this)
 - the latter aplies to msdosf long names

Or would you suggest to not encode the unicdoe names in the two latter cases
into utf8 but something else? What intermediate representation are you 
talking about (I only see "must fit char* apis" as a intermediate 
representation - but I don't see how to avoid that).

What I completely don't understand is how your proposed transcoding sheme
works, from a kernel API point of view.