- From: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:43:08 +0300
- To: Eric U <ericu@google.com>
- Cc: Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@google.com>
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Eric U <ericu@google.com> wrote: > Regarding case sensitivity: I originally specced it as > case-insensitive-case-preserving to make it easier to support a > passthrough implementation on Windows and Mac. However, as > passthroughs have turned out to be unfeasible [see previous thread on > path length problems], all case insensitivity really gets us is > potential locale issues. I suggest we drop it and just go with a > case-sensitive filesystem. I'm somewhat worried about the case where two files have nearly the same name and the user gets confused. It's bad enough that one of my phones doesn't show file extensions and its text editor generates files that are either HTML or Plain (actually, i can't remember the actual file extensions, but the point its it generates "rich text" and "plain text" - and can promote/demote). So I generally have a file <notes> and a file <notes> and I can't tell them apart and I can't remember which one I want (the edit date is often the same for both and one has the content I want and one is the accidental version from before I switched file formats). While case folding is expensive and painful, do we have any use cases for allowing similarly named files beyond "enabling the user to conflate them"? Consider the following two items: gооgle.com google.com - try loading them in a web browser -- oddly my web browser tells me that the second one is misspelled :) My argument is that we should favor: 'case preserving' + 'case folding' + 'case insensitivity'. The virtual file system is going to be something which is mostly controlled by the web app, so there should be minimal harm in telling it that there's already a file with a given name -- it can load the file, review its contents, and try to decide that it should suggest the user use a more distinct name. As we're proposing file names that are longer than most users are likely to use by default, we can include datestamps (timeless unless collisions happen) to disambiguate user generated collisions via a browser side import -- if such a feature is provided at all).
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 07:43:35 UTC