- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 13:22:05 -0400
- To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
- Cc: Eric U <ericu@google.com>, Web Applications Working Group WG <public-webapps@w3.org>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@google.com>
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 9:38 AM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote: > Consider the case where a user is trying to build a "web site", where > they might have "resources" which are accessible via another resource > (e.g. a web page). I'd much rather that we not make it easy for users > to have Hi, hi, Hï, Hı as distinct files, I don't think they're well > served by doing this. If someone gets a collision then something > should automatically pick or ask for a different name, this might in > rare cases be the user, but on average it'll just be the code itself > picking something like hi_1, which will be fine. This can be solved at the application layer in applications that want it, without baking it into the filesystem API. >> It's a serious problem if this isn't interoperable. If filenames are >> case-insensitive and honor the locale, then people are going to save >> files as "IMAGE.JPG" and access them as "image.jpg", and it'll work >> everywhere except on Turkish systems. > > This point has no merit. Eric's proposal says "let's support things > which won't work on FAT anyway". As such, anything which tries to > serialize to fat and have the resulting content "work" would have to > apply a filter -- just as "save as web page complete" munges things > today. I don't know what you're talking about. We're not talking about serializing to FAT, we're talking about case-sensitivity within virtualized filenames. Again, if filenames are case-insensitive, then the API will work differently on a Turkish system than other systems, as I described, in a way that's guaranteed to cause interop failures. This point stands. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 17:22:32 UTC