5 ms·

So it is correct then, the file system doesn't concern itself with normalization. File names are stored internally as utf-8 strings which are just a sequence of

by bigin 9y ago

So it is correct then, the file system doesn't concern itself with normalization. File names are stored internally as utf-8 strings which are just a sequence of bytes.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
By that logic that was true for HFS+ as well.
- bigin 9y ago
  HFS+ did perform normalization on a file system level and stored strings as utf-16 so it's not true for HFS+.
  - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
    Pretty sure normalization was done in open() and not the fs. Normalization was performed even for fat32 sticks.
    - bigin 9y ago
      So you disagree with the linked blog post then? I mean this entire discussion is based on the premise that HFS+ performs normalization and APFS does not. The disrcepancy means that what used to happen automatically is now the responsibility of individual applications and the author hypothises that this means that shit will break.
      - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
        Not sure what you want me to say. In my mind the current situation with APFS is a massive pain and was not well thought through. Previously normalization (while terrible) was at least consistent. Now different APIs have widely different behaviour and it's even worse on the application level. What used to be a annoyance has now become absolute chaos with no guidance from apple. My understanding of the article is effectively: AFPS on macOS in the current form is unusable for non-English users and I strongly agree with that. While it might be partially usable, in particular if you upgrade from an earlier mac was performed, it has a ton of really terrible edge cases most users will quickly run into.
Someone 9y ago
Every UTF-8 string is a sequence of bytes, but not every sequence of bytes is a UTF-8 string.
cryptonector 9y ago
A terrible mistake. APFS should have been normalization-preserving/normalization-insensitive.
- chipotle_coyote 9y ago
  Quoting from https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/APFS_Guide/FAQ/FAQ.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Fi... "The case-insensitive variant of APFS is normalization-preserving, but not normalization-sensitive."
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    "The case-sensitive variant of APFS is both normalization-preserving and normalization-sensitive." It should just always be form-preserving and form-INsensitive. There is absolutely no reason to want the combination they give. It makes me suspect that they didn't bother separating case- and form-insensitivity, although I can't imagine why one wouldn't. It seems like.. a mistake. Someone misunderstood.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by bigin 9y ago

So it is correct then, the file system doesn't concern itself with normalization. File names are stored internally as utf-8 strings which are just a sequence of bytes.

the_mitsuhiko 9y ago

By that logic that was true for HFS+ as well.

bigin 9y ago
HFS+ did perform normalization on a file system level and stored strings as utf-16 so it's not true for HFS+.
- the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
  Pretty sure normalization was done in open() and not the fs. Normalization was performed even for fat32 sticks.
  - bigin 9y ago
    So you disagree with the linked blog post then? I mean this entire discussion is based on the premise that HFS+ performs normalization and APFS does not. The disrcepancy means that what used to happen automatically is now the responsibility of individual applications and the author hypothises that this means that shit will break.
    - the_mitsuhiko 9y ago
      Not sure what you want me to say. In my mind the current situation with APFS is a massive pain and was not well thought through. Previously normalization (while terrible) was at least consistent. Now different APIs have widely different behaviour and it's even worse on the application level. What used to be a annoyance has now become absolute chaos with no guidance from apple. My understanding of the article is effectively: AFPS on macOS in the current form is unusable for non-English users and I strongly agree with that. While it might be partially usable, in particular if you upgrade from an earlier mac was performed, it has a ton of really terrible edge cases most users will quickly run into.

Someone 9y ago

Every UTF-8 string is a sequence of bytes, but not every sequence of bytes is a UTF-8 string.

cryptonector 9y ago

A terrible mistake. APFS should have been normalization-preserving/normalization-insensitive.

chipotle_coyote 9y ago
Quoting from https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/APFS_Guide/FAQ/FAQ.html https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Fi... "The case-insensitive variant of APFS is normalization-preserving, but not normalization-sensitive."
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- cryptonector 9y ago
  "The case-sensitive variant of APFS is both normalization-preserving and normalization-sensitive." It should just always be form-preserving and form-INsensitive. There is absolutely no reason to want the combination they give. It makes me suspect that they didn't bother separating case- and form-insensitivity, although I can't imagine why one wouldn't. It seems like.. a mistake. Someone misunderstood.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]