On 3 Dec 2002, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> By author: Jungshik Shin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The same is true here. Although Unix file system has few > > restrictions on file/dir names, it needs to have a provision to specify > > how to deal with multiple representations of equivalent characters. Is > > there anything mentioned about this in SUS? > > Yes. Filenames are byte sequences, period, full stop. Any attempt at > normalization would violate SUS/POSIX. All right. That's what the *current* SUS/POSIX says. However, that is hardly a solace to a user who'd be puzzled that two visually identical and cannonically equivalent filenames are treated differently. For instance, U+00D6(Latin Capital Letter O with diaresis) should look identical and be treated identically with U+004F foll. by U+0308. That's what users expect. I don't know what's the best way to resolve this conflict. It may be time to consider seriously this particular aspect of SUS/POSIX. I'm wondering how MacOS X (well, it's not 100% SUS/POSIX compliant, but nonetheless it's Unix) works in this area. It uses NFD. That is, 'U+00D6' is stored as 'U+004F U+0308' and both are treated idnetically. Jungshik -- Linux-UTF8: i18n of Linux on all levels Archive: http://mail.nl.linux.org/linux-utf8/
