Re: Representing Unix filenames in Unicode

From: Hans Aberg (
Date: Mon Nov 28 2005 - 01:31:28 CST

  • Next message: Hans Aberg: "Re: Representing Unix filenames in Unicode"

    On 28 Nov 2005, at 06:58, Doug Ewell wrote:

    >> Most facts points to that the Unicode/10646 is a human interface,
    >> not a computer to computer to computer interface.
    > I wonder what on earth that means.

    Do you mean the typo (the erroneously extra "to computer")?
    Otherwise, it just means that computers works best with handling low
    structured binary data, whereas for humans it is the opposite,
    usually handling thinking in terms of high level structures, not even
    binary in nature. If computers should just communicate among
    themselves, as in done in the low level on a filesystem, they do not
    have any benefit of knowing that the filenames can be given human
    interpretation, as is done with the Unicode/10646 character set. Right?

       Hans Aberg

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 28 2005 - 01:37:16 CST