Hi metze,
on top of the first doc I see you state that all strings should be utf8.
I hearteadly disagree, I woul d rather like to see all internal strings
on new code to be UCS-2.
Utf8 has many disadvantages:
1. require any RPC requests that comes from clients to be converted
forth and back
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 21:32, Michael Sweet wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
Hi metze,
on top of the first doc I see you state that all strings should be utf8.
I hearteadly disagree, I woul d rather like to see all internal strings
on new code to be UCS-2.
Utf8 has many disadvantages:
1.
Simo Sorce wrote:
...
Also, some SMB clients are using UTF-16 now (superset of UCS-2 to
support code points in other Unicode planes) instead of UCS-2.
which clients?
IIRC, MacOS X and Windows XP clients use UTF-16, although unless
you are a Chinese user you will never notice.
...
In
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 22:14, Michael Sweet wrote:
To make life even more interesting, case comparisons are a
locale-dependent solution. That is, A with an umlat may
not compare equal to a with an umlat in some locales (or
shouldn't, anyways).
This is not a problem of mine.
Conversion
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
- Original Message -
From: Simo Sorce [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Stefan (metze) Metzmacher [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Samba Technical [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi metze,
on top of the first doc I see you state that all strings should be utf8.
I hearteadly disagree, I woul d rather like to see all internal
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
HI Andrew,
Andrew Bartlett,Kai Krueger,Jelmer(ctrlsoft)Vernooij and me are designing a
new SAM interface and new a SID mapping System (SMS).
We discussed it on irc.openprojects.net #samba-technical.
Take a look at
