Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Rationale for aligning data on even bytes in a Unix shell file?
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 22:23:33 +0300
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <20250428222333.00003b57@yahoo.com>
References: <vuih43$2agfa$1@dont-email.me>
	<vun04h$2fjrn$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vun1nh$22hc5$3@dont-email.me>
	<vunak2$2p980$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vunbgo$2q5u8$1@dont-email.me>
	<vunbjg$2q72n$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vunhtp$301lb$1@dont-email.me>
	<vunib4$308ou$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vunilp$30n57$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<vcMPP.1383459$f81.136711@fx48.iad>
	<vuobu5$3o38b$2@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
	<SxOPP.2986762$t84d.1636746@fx11.iad>
	<20250428203634.00006e09@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 21:23:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="04c6782056f0daea581e9eec296b8f52";
	logging-data="11409"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rfADO0CgZF9xSebPoA1hoJwZ5D2FobcE="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Erpivs9O7PAxEIAD7HjLhNY2etk=
X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.34; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
Bytes: 4311

On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 20:36:34 +0300
Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 17:03:46 GMT
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
> 
> > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:  
> > >Am 28.04.2025 um 16:24 schrieb Scott Lurndal:    
> > >> Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:    
> > >>> Am 28.04.2025 um 11:39 schrieb Bonita Montero:
> > >>>    
> > >>>> Am 28.04.2025 um 11:31 schrieb Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org:    
> > >>>    
> > >>>> Yes, Unix-APIs are really achaic. When you have a filename
> > >>>> written with ohne user's locale and another with a different
> > >>>> locale reads that he get's at most a partitially readable
> > >>>> filename. For Janis this seems to be flexibility, but for me
> > >>>> that's a problem. A file- system should have fixed charset, at
> > >>>> best Unicode.    
> > >>>
> > >>> I did have a look at how macOS / APFS handles this:
> > >>> for macOS all filenames are UTF-8.    
> > >> 
> > >> No, unix (and macOS _is_ unix) filenames are a simple stream of
> > >> bytes with no meaning or semantic associated with the bytes other
> > >> than the terminating nul character and the directory separator
> > >> character.    
> > >
> > >The Wikipedia says that APFS is UTF-8 capable.
> > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_File_System    
> > 
> > So is linux.   The operating system ascribes no meaning to the bytes
> > stored in the filesystem directories.   They're just a stream of
> > bytes.
> >   
> 
> That's nonsense.
> Every case-preserving case-insensitive file system has to understand
> characters encoding, at least to a certain degree.
> Apple file systems can be configured to be case-sensitive, but it's
> not default and recommended for none-specialist users.
> 

Please read "and not recommended for"

> > One can treat them as UTF-8, which is generally the case.   In which
> > case your objections about 'garbage' in a different locale are
> > pointless. UTF-8 fonts are universal.  The currently locale doesn't
> > matter.
> > 
> > Windows, on the other hand, limits the character set to those that
> > can be described in 16-bit units, and the "locale" matters for not
> > only display purposes, but also for character processing.  
> 
> It's rather hard to understand what you mean by above sentence.
> If you meant to say that Windows file names have to use only
> characters that were present in [mostly forgotten] UTC-2 character set
> then you are mistaken.

Please read "UCS-2"

> If you meant something else then please express yourself more clearly.
> If it was your usual instinctive Windows bashing then don't bother.
> 
> 
>