RE: Unicode in VFAT file system

Date: Fri Jul 21 2000 - 09:07:49 EDT

Asmus Freytag wrote:
> At 09:53 AM 7/20/00 -0800, Ken Krugler wrote:
> >2. Is little-endian UCS-2 a valid encoding that I just don't
> know about?
> Yes, it is. Your example of the VFAT system is a near perfect
> case, since
> the details of it form what Unicode calls a 'Higher level
> protocol' and
> those may legitimately override the default byte order.

OK, one more myth is falling (UCS-2 being mandatorily BE). But I am still
confused with some details.

If UCS-2LE is a *standard* encoding (and it is in fact mentioned in UTR-17),
how does VFAT directories qualify as a "higher level protocol"?

My understanding of "higher level protocol" is that it is a *non* standard
usage of some kind, allowed internally (or within a private group), that
should not be transmitted to the world at large.

Does this mean that MS's VFAT directories miss something (e.g. a BOM) to be
a true UCS-2LE?

Or are you simply meaning that the internals of an operating system are a
"higher level protocol" by definition (even if they casually comply with
some standard)?

_ Marco

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT