Subject: Re: UTF-8 file names?
To: Valeriy E. Ushakov <>
From: Bill Studenmund <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 10/01/2004 14:46:40
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 09:34:51AM +0000, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> Thomas Klausner <> wrote:
> >> Note that this patch doesn't handle -B and -b options, because I'm
> >> not sure how strvis() should be i18n'ized.
> >=20
> > Does someone else have comments on this?
> What about
> \xHHHH or for double byte encodings
> \uHHHH or \UHHHHHHHH for unicode (or whatever java and c99 syntax is).

I'm confused as to why we would want both. Is there prior art we're=20

I ask as my initial read on your comments is that one syntax would=20
generate UTF-16 output, and the other would generate UTF-8. However it=20
strikes me that we either are dealing with a routine that works with only=
one or the other (it is passed wchar or char strings explicitly) or we are=
dealing with an output routine that learns what to do based on ENV=20
settings. In either case, there is enough context that I don't see why=20
we'd need both.

Take care,


Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)