4 ms·
There are many non-UTF-8/16/32 character encoding used in the wild which use these value in multi-byte character encoding. These values are used in the wild. I
by ezoe 2y ago
There are many non-UTF-8/16/32 character encoding used in the wild which use these value in multi-byte character encoding. These values are used in the wild.
I think the decision forbidding newline in pathname is also wrong. It may break tons of existing code.
- skissane 2y agoI wish Linux/etc had a mount option and/or superblock flag called “allow only sane file names”. And if you had that set, then attempting to create a file whose name wasn’t valid UTF-8, or which contained C0 or C1 controls, would fail. The small minority of people who really need pre-Unicode encodings such as ISO 2022 could just not turn that option on. And the majority who don’t need anything like that could reap the benefits of eliminating a whole category of potential bugs and vulnerabilities.
- Joker_vD 2y ago> There are many non-UTF-8/16/32 character encoding used in the wild which use these value in multi-byte character encoding. Like what? I am genuinely curious: Shift-JIS, GB2312, Big5, and all of the EUC variants do not use bytes that correspond to C0 characters in ASCII.