Re: A Great Idea (tm) about reimplementing NLS.

[Patrick McFarland]

On Wednesday 15 June 2005 05:28 pm, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> What do you do if the underlying filesystem can not store some unicode
> characters that are allowed on others?

Um, thats impossible, unless you're implying something like the file system 
not being 8-bit safe. The only thing UTF-8 does is store data in bytes, it 
doesn't need any real support from the file system.

> > It depend's on what it is used for. It is very good fs for removable
> > media. None of linux native filesystems is good for this because of
> > different uids on different machines. Since VFAT uses unicode it is
> > possible to see the filenames properly on systems using different
> > codepages for the same language (1:1 is possible).

> VFAT uses unicode?  I thought it used the same codepage silyness as FAT
> did, since after all ti was just supposed to be a long filename
> extension to FAT.  Do they use unicode in the long filenames only?

I mentioned earlier that VFAT uses 8-bit encodings, none of them (supported by 
Windows, at least) are Unicode.

> I think UDF is a better filesystem for many types of media since it is
> able to me more gently to the sectors storing the meta data than VFAT
> ever will be.

I agree. UDF is the true successor to the portable media throne.

-- 
Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || pmcfarland@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd 
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature