On 09/07/2012 03:30 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: > Not that I believe that, -- I just think most users aren't > aware or don't care, but that would be the reasoning. I get it here, > why would I expect someone who's job is to come up with lame rules that > defy standard practice (last I looked they were proposing to ban "space" > (as well as 0x01-0x1f) in file names).
You aren't looking very hard, then. The proposal currently being considered by the Austin Group is a ban on newline (and newline only) from file names, because that is the one and only character whose presence in file names causes ambiguous output for line-oriented tools. Forbidding space and most non-printing control characters was rejected as impractical. And even with the proposed ban on newline, it is still just that - a proposal, and not a hard rule, waiting for implementation practice to see if it is even doable. http://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=251 Read the whole thing. The original poster mentioned a much tighter bound, but it was shot down, with the _only_ thing being left on the table under current discussion is _just_ the limitation of newline. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature