Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Pavel Cahyna <email@example.com>
Date: 11/22/2004 14:49:42
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:35:35 +0000, der Mouse wrote:
>>>> Changing msdosfs to use UTF-8 would break msdosfs for people happily
>>>> using ISO-8859-1, however.
>>> So? It doesn't seem to bother you to break FFS for people using it for
>>> other than UTF-8; why is this any different?
> [Pavel Cahyna <firstname.lastname@example.org>]
>> Maybe I didn't follow this discussion closely enough, but did Jaromir
>> propose to do this (breaking FFS for people using it for other than
> I'm not certain - but someone did, and it seemd to me that Jaromir was
> arguing in favour of it.
> Specifically, the proposal as I saw it was to declare, by fiat, that the
> user<->kernel ABI would operate on UTF8-encoded character sequences,
> rather than the octet sequences we have today - which of course would
> affect (the userland interface to) all filesystems in use. Including FFS,
> if any are mounted.
Maybe, the proposal sounded like this. I'm not an advocate of such
solution, which would only add complexity to the kernel without helping at
all the legacy applications which don't use UTF-8.
But I still think that the default for all applications should be UTF-8,
as prototyped by the GTK+ library, and so it should be the default for
Unicode-using filesystems like Joliet. (It seems that's what Jaromir just
did - thanks.)