On 3/28/07, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 19:43 +0200, Denis Jacquerye wrote: > > On 3/28/07, Alexander Larsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 11:50 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 16:55 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > > > Most applications that operate on files will accept file name > > > > arguments when invoked. What are we supposed to do with these? > > > > Bear in mind that the argument isn't only used by shell junkies. > > > > It's also used when, for example, you double-click a JPG to open > > > > EOG. Nautilus passes the file name to EOG. > > > > > > > > If we don't normalize, users might have a hard time opening > > > > files from the command line. > > > > > > Filenames on disk can *never* *ever* be changed. They are byte strings > > > and must be treated as such, otherwise you can't open or operate on the > > > file they reference. > > > > > > However, when creating a *new* file, given a utf8 string as filename, we > > > can normalize it before creating the file. > > > > For command line or invoked name, applications could test for the > > requested name; if inexistant, they should attempt with the > > canonically equivalent filenames existing. > > No, its never right to guess like this. It can lead to all sorts of > problems, and it is a performance drag. File names are exact > identifiers, not UI strings.
So how should it be done? If I have a file "é" (precomposed) and I type "é" (composed), how is the existing file going to be opened? Denis Moyogo Jacquerye _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
