From: Julian Bradfield (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 14:56:46 CST
On 2009-12-14, Michael Everson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I agree. Canonical equivalence is identity.
That's a nonsensical statement. Well, actually it's not nonsensical,
it's just plain wrong.
Everybody who uses the word "identity" in a technical sense knows what
it means, and it doesn't mean "has different bytes".
What you presumably mean is "the space in which filenames live *ought*
to be the set of utf-8 strings quotiented by canonical equivalence"
(so that two canonically equivalent strings are representatives of one
and the same filename).
But that's a moral assertion, not a statement of fact.
-- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 14:58:42 CST