Re: unicode

Alex Belits (
Sun, 17 May 1998 20:36:29 -0700 (PDT)

On Mon, 18 May 1998, Erik Corry wrote:

> > What I mean by default is that at some point we might add support for a
> > single bit in the directory entry to indicate "this was encoded using an
> > old "just send 8 bits" system, for transition away from folks who are
> > just using their local character set.
> Ideally, there should be a mount option for legacy ext2
> filesystems (and many other FSs) to give the charset. The
> mount program should provide the whole 8-bit-to-Unicode
> table, not just the name of the charset. That way,
> mount can use the excellent charset tables that glibc
> provides and we can get rid of all the charset options when
> compiling the kernel (unless we want to support non-Unicode
> charsets for the root partition).

Really? Why the whole filesystem uses only one charset? Why
narrow-minded Unicode proponents don't see a possibility that multiple
charsets are already used within one host or filesystem, and people have
no problems with that as long as they speak languages that use those
charsets? And that any attemts to "help" those people to use their
languages will only create the conversions chaos that Unicode proponents
*think*, exists now.


- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to