> On Tuesday, November 29th, 2005 07:03Z, Chris Jacobs wrote: >>> >>> What happens when two files have different, but canonical >>> equivalent, file names? >> >> My idea is that you are going to loose, so probably thou shalt not do >> that. > > Why that? The user interface can disambiguate the "user-friendly"">

Representing Unix filenames in Unicode (original) (raw)

Next message: Philippe Verdy: "Re: Character delta between Unicode 4.1 and 5.0"

Philippe Verdy wrote:
> From: "Antoine Leca"
>> On Tuesday, November 29th, 2005 07:03Z, Chris Jacobs wrote:
>>>
>>> What happens when two files have different, but canonical
>>> equivalent, file names?
>>
>> My idea is that you are going to loose, so probably thou shalt not do
>> that.
>
> Why that? The user interface can disambiguate the "user-friendly"

It can. But it probably would not, at least under normal circomstances. So
the risk for a bad move is very high here.

I am not to say the whole concept is useless: I certainly can see ideas,
being of the rootkits (or the dual, anti-virus and the like) class, or to
test automatic tools. This is why I used the "Churchish" statement, in an
intent to make clear one can always encounter exceptions to a rule.

Antoine

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 05:23:16 CST