From: Noveck, Dave (Dave.Noveck@netapp.com)
Date: 01/26/03-02:46:06 PM Z
Message-ID: <C8CF60CFC4D8A74E9945E32CF096548A072A49@SILVER.nane.netapp.com>
From: "Noveck, Dave" <Dave.Noveck@netapp.com>
Subject: RE: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4 rfc3010bis- 05 draft]
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2003 12:46:06 -0800
OK, so where did I go wrong?
a) ligature fi followed by "le" and the string "file" are
compatibility equivalent.
b) If two strings are compatibility equivalent, then
under a K-style normalization form, only one of them
can be valid.
c) The compatibility composition of "file" is the ligature
fi followed by "le".
d) Thus ligature fi followed by the string "le" is valid
under normalization form KC.
e) The string "file" is invalid under normalization form KC.
QED.
So if the result e) is false, which of a), b), c), d) are false?
-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Williams [mailto:Nicolas.Williams@sun.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 3:12 PM
To: Noveck, Dave
Cc: 'mike@eisler.com'; Spencer Shepler; nfsv4-wg@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Subject: Re: [Dan.Oscarsson@kiconsulting.se: Comments on NFSv4
rfc3010bis- 05 draft]
No, ASCII text is a legal sub-set of UTF-8.
8859-1/2, non-ASCII text, is NOT legal UTF-8.
Cheers,
Nico
On Sat, Jan 25, 2003 at 06:38:10PM -0800, Noveck, Dave wrote:
> I'm not an expert but my understanding of normalization form KC
> is that under it "file" (that is, ascii f, ascii i, ascii l, ascii e)
> would be an invalid file name. Can anyone who is familiar with this
> stuff confirm or deny?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:50:49 AM Z CST