Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: MINOURA Makoto <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/19/2004 07:44:46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
On Nov 17, 2004, at 7:57 PM, MINOURA Makoto wrote:
> - Mountpoints
> (/<Russion dirname>/<Japanese dirname>/<German filename>,
> but this could not be accessible from processes with
> LC_ALL=de_DE.ISO8859-15 for example)
I think this could be handled if UTF-8 were the standard encoding for
userland<->kernel interaction, yes?
> - Multiple encoding in a single volume
> (which we allow currently; suppose /home for Russians
> and Japanese, and /home on a UFS)
I think UTF-8 could also handle this, which is great because it doesn't
require any changes to the UFS on-disk representation.
> - Msdosfs, shortnames in legacy encoding and longnames in UCS2
Again, UTF-8 could handle this.
My feeling is that the convergence point should be "UTF-8 at the system
call layer", i.e. userland gives UTF-8 names to the kernel, the kernel
gives UTF-8 names to userland. It would then be the responsibility of
the individual applications/system libraries/kernel subsystems to do
whatever translation to/from UTF-8 is required.
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>
content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453;
content-description: This is a digitally signed message part
content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----