From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266664AbUBQVsY (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:48:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266651AbUBQVsO (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:48:14 -0500 Received: from mail.shareable.org ([81.29.64.88]:12421 "EHLO mail.shareable.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266672AbUBQVrh (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2004 16:47:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:47:33 +0000 From: Jamie Lokier To: Alex Belits Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: UTF-8 practically vs. theoretically in the VFS API Message-ID: <20040217214733.GJ24311@mail.shareable.org> References: <20040216222618.GF18853@mail.shareable.org> <20040217071448.GA8846@schmorp.de> <20040217161111.GE8231@schmorp.de> <20040217164651.GB23499@mail.shareable.org> <20040217205707.GF24311@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alex Belits wrote: > > No, I think hacking the terminal I/O is the best bet here. Then _all_ > > programs which currently work with UTF-8 terminals, which is rapidly > > becoming most of them, will work the same with both kinds of terminal, > > and the illusion of perfection will be complete and beautiful. > > UTF-8 terminals (and variable-encoding terminals) alreay exist, > gnome-terminal is one of them. They are, of course, bloated pigs, but I > would rather have the bloat and idiosyncrasy in the user interface where > it belongs. Yes, I am using it right now. The fancy characters work well in it. Problem is, sometimes I have to use a non-UTF-8 terminal, and I would naturally like to access my files in the same way. -- Jamie