On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:13:08 +0100 Victor Stinner <victor.stinner at haypocalc.com> wrote: > On Thursday 11 November 2010 21:02:43 Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 20:44:52 +0100 > > > > "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > > > > How do you support cross-platform code using bytes filenames? > > > > IIRC, it has already been argued that it was an important feature. Many > > > > filesystem-related utilities might prefer to handle filenames in bytes > > > > form. > > > > > > It would be a policy decision. However, I think it is hear-say that > > > filesystem-related utilities might prefer byte file names. > > > > One possible situation is when you receive filenames in bytes form from > > an external API or tool (or even the contents of a file). If you don't > > know the encoding, keeping the bytes form is obviously recommended. > > I disagree with you: the filename stored in the binary content/network stream > may be encoded with a different code page than the current Windows code page. > The application have to decode the filename itself, the application has more > information about the right encoding than Windows. I'm not talking about Windows obviously. POSIX filenames are natively bytes, so if you get a bytes filename from an external source, it makes sense to reuse the bytes form. I think it would be a mistake to allow bytes filenames under POSIX but not under Windows. It makes porting harder. > - tar stores filenames... in the locale encoding (except for PAX format which > uses utf-8) So bytes filenames are useful at least for tar. I'm sure there are many other cases (actually, most kinds of configuration files containing paths would apply). Regards Antoine.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4