3 ms·
I think, the problem with Unicode normalization is, input methods are (well, conceptually, at least) meant to produce text, not binary. If filesystems are using
by drdaeman 10y ago
I think, the problem with Unicode normalization is, input methods are (well, conceptually, at least) meant to produce text, not binary. If filesystems are using binary data for filenames, there can be a case when is really no way to address a file by typing its name, even if you can type in that language. This isn't an issue for case sensitivity or alike.
- zrm 10y agoPrograms often allow you to type arbitrary binary values using a keyboard, either by holding a keyboard control key and typing the numeric value, or prefixing it with '\'.
- coldtea 10y ago>If filesystems are using binary data for filenames, there can be a case when is really no way to address a file by typing its name, even if you can type in that language You could do that trivially in UNIX since forever.
- drdaeman 10y agoDon't know about other UNIXes, but at least on GNU/Linux, neither IMEs nor filesystems are working with text data - it's all binary strings (with a few restrictions, like unacceptability of NULs). The only place where those binary strings are converted to text is when they're rendered (and this may cause some encoding-related oddities). So, sure one can do that. I would've actually preferred for identifiers to be Unicode text strings.
- snuxoll 10y agoFilesystems themselves treating file names and paths at bits of binary data is the right way to do it, normalization shouldn't be handled directly by the filesystem as it adds complexity and duplication of effort. Ideally, the VFS layer should be handling all this garbage.