| Re: [AD] Windows unicode filename support |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.liballeg.org/allegro-developers Archives
]
- To: alleg-developers@xxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [AD] Windows unicode filename support
- From: Chris <chris.kcat@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 14:20:44 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; b=jSzxAZ0YjvXM53+/EMvif/AoWC9Ek+aHpEgoH7uUlsadxRvhBd4dSPMrL7J9yGgGG8cVBrKFB0g9kNbwQIa+OmlgkBo8pEaGBsf/I4yx97WPNvWolZHlq+TbsyxSL+RR31txn813XQStpUakp2PR4hnLYFADgrJGgDS0ynTWBPo=
On Wednesday 03 May 2006 13:54, Michal Molhanec wrote:
> Oops, sorry, I've send bad file. I'm really sorry for that.
That patch is a bit overdone, don't you think? ASCII is too limited to
properly display many characters, even with codepages since you can only have
one set at a given time. You're still limited to less than 256 characters.
IMO, Unicode (UTF-8 or UTF-16) is the way to go, and Windows has support for
UTF-16, so we should be using that.
Unfortunately Win9x doesn't support Windows's Unicode functions properly, but
those systems can continue to use the ASCII functions they've been using this
whole time. Win9x doesn't lose anything, and WinNT/2K/XP gain Unicode
character support.
You could merge the patches, I suppose, but I really don't see the need. Win9x
are old, and inherently less functional. The code that was there worked. This
patch adds (unnecessary) complexity, and only benefits the handful of people
that use extended characters in filenames and can't get WinXP, or even Win2K.