On 10 December 2014 at 08:37, Phillips, Addison <addison@lab126.com> wrote: > Although normalization is often a good idea... normalization might be a > problem if the local filesystem allows normalized and non-normalized > representations both to appear. You wouldn't be able to specify a > non-normalized representation. > > Do you have an example? I'm trying to think it through, but I keep going in circles. The one I think of is ext[2-4] where the filesystem stores octet sequences, and shell/applications/etc. use things like the user's locale environment when representing those octets as text strings. Are you saying that if we mandate NFC normalisation of URIs, you can't distinguish between a files whose filename octets are {0xE4} vs {0xC3, 0xA4} (i.e. U+00E4 "รค" in WIndows-1252 / UTF-8)? Wouldn't "file://%E4" would cover that? -- Matthew Kerwin http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2014 23:00:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 10 October 2021 22:17:57 UTC