On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 22:59, Jeremy Allison wrote: > But Simo, I disagree about the internal rep. I think it > needs to be utf8 for Samba internal strings. We already > have to deal with mbcs issues - this doesn't make it any > worse.
Have you thought how difficult is to effectively use utf8 strings? search/replace/uppercase/lowercase? it is very difficult to manipulate correctly utf8 strings without introducing errors. I already experimented working with ucs2 null terminated strings and it is way more easy and less prone to errors. a character is always 2 bytes long and a byte codification doesn't change meaning based on which place do it takes inside a string. And substituting/manipulating characters in a string do not change the string length with ucs2! Can you instead tell me what are benefits of using utf8? -- Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xsec s.r.l. via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
