On Jan 21, 2008, at 6:00 PM, Theodore Tso wrote:

quoted text
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 05:46:27PM -0500, Kevin Ballard wrote:
>> I find it amusing that you keep arguing against having git treat  
>> filenames
>> as unicode when, if you had actually taken my advice and read my  
>> previous
>> email talking about "ideal" vs "practical"...
>
> If by "ideal" you mean a world where 100% of all computers were
> designed by Steve Jobs, you might have a point.

NO NO NO NO NO. READ MY EMAIL. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT I'M  
TALKING ABOUT.

The most frustrating thing about this thread is everybody keeps  
arguing about what they *assume* I'm talking about without actually  
bothering to read what I'm saying.

quoted text
>> In other words, I was trying to illustrate that
>> HFS+ isn't wrong, it's just different, and the difference is  
>> causing the
>> problem.
>
> And if you want to interoperate with the rest of the world, where at
> least count over 92% of computers are NOT running HFS+, then "Thinking
> Different" is indeed causing the problem, yes.  And whose fault is  
> that?

And if you want to interoperate with the rest of the world, where at  
least count over 92% of computers are running Windows, then using  
another OS is stupid, right? Right? I mean, if everyone else is doing  
it, we should too, shouldn't we?

quoted text
> The whole point of interoperability is that when we communicate, we
> have to do so in a uniform and predictable way.  If we can't, the next
> best thing is to have protocol translators; but in order to do that,
> we must avoid lossy transformations, such as HFS+'s
> pseudo-normalization.  (Why, by the way, will not result in a "normal"
> form for any glyph which can be encoded with and without a combining
> character if said glyph was introduced into Unicode after 1988.  So
> you can't even call it a "normalization" algorithm, but just a
> pseudo-normalization transformation which is lossy and which DESTROYS
> filename information in an irrecoverable way.)

Sure it's normalization, it's just not using one of the standard  
forms. But the form is well-defined.

And yes, protocol translators are a good idea. That's why I thought  
the original suggestion of using a table to map index filenames <-> HFS 
+ filenames sounded like it could work. The only time that should fail  
is if the index contains multiple filenames that HFS+ will treat as a  
single filename. Is there a problem with this approach?

-Kevin Ballard

-- 
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
kevin@sb.org
http://www.tildesoft.com