Yes. So I naievely thought when I mentioned OSTA compressed Unicode
that I am working with in a UDF filesystem driver.
> The main point I'd like to make, though, is this: this is the
> linux-kernel mailing list; we should try to restrict ourselves to
> discussions pertinent to the kernel.
Agreed!
> ...it seems
> reasonable for the kernel to support more than 256 characters. In the
> interests of a small kernel (both source and binary), whatever encoding is
> used should be space-efficient and not require large processing routines
> (eg for character begin-end detection). Unicode and UTF-8 provide this,
> while still not having excessively large overhead for unusual character
> storage; most 'native' encodings that support more than 256 characters
> don't have this advantage.
This will be INTERNAL TO THE KERNEL (for now) if I understand correctly?
Okay, so shall we take a vote on UTF-8 now, and adapt where necessary
the kernel to use it?
What does Linus think?
-- Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@netcom.ca