Subject: Re: Unicode support in iso9660.
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Pavel Cahyna <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/22/2004 10:06:46
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 23:10:33 +0000, der Mouse wrote:
>> Changing msdosfs to use UTF-8 would break msdosfs for people happily
>> using ISO-8859-1, however.
> So? It doesn't seem to bother you to break FFS for people using it for
> other than UTF-8; why is this any different?
Maybe I didn't follow this discussion closely enough, but did
Jaromir propose to do this (breaking FFS for people using it for other
than UTF-8)? I thought that the discussion is only about filesystems who
store filenames in an incompatible encoding like UCS-2 (msdosfs, ntfs,
I see that UTF-8 has been proposed by Jason Thorpe in
<F04E64F3-3A41-11D9-8F47-000A957650EC@shagadelic.org> as the encoding for
the system call layer, but maybe the intent was to enforce it only for
filesystems that need it?