On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Barry Caplan wrote:
> At 08:43 AM 7/10/2002 -0400, Jungshik Shin wrote:
> >> In short: should I still stick to ASCII alone in filenames, or are there
> >> filesystems where I really don't have to anymore? Thanks in advance.
> >
> > Definitely/unconditionally no for NTFS. As
Barry Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But be aware that such filenames may or may not be able to be transferred
> *across* file systems. Not only that, but, although I haven't tested in
> detail for a while, I would not be fully comfortable with middleware that is
> responsible for managing f
At 08:43 AM 7/10/2002 -0400, Jungshik Shin wrote:
>> In short: should I still stick to ASCII alone in filenames, or are there
>> filesystems where I really don't have to anymore? Thanks in advance.
>
> Definitely/unconditionally no for NTFS. As for Linux ext2(and most other
>Unix fs'), unless you
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002, Shlomi Tal wrote:
> Hello Unicoders, I have a question about filesystems. I never use anything
> but ASCII characters in filenames, and I would like to know if it is still
> justified. Of the various filesystems in use, I know only that the Joliet
> CDFS uses UCS-2BE. What
Hello Unicoders, I have a question about filesystems. I never use anything
but ASCII characters in filenames, and I would like to know if it is still
justified. Of the various filesystems in use, I know only that the Joliet
CDFS uses UCS-2BE. What about FAT16, FAT32, NTFS and Linux Ext2?
In sh
5 matches
Mail list logo
