okuyamak at dd.iij4u.or.jp
Tue May 22 02:02:21 GMT 2001
>>>>> "JA" == Jeremy Allison <jeremy at valinux.com> writes:
>> Windows 98 and NT seems to be using Unicode version 2, and since so,
>> they only give you 0x30AC cases only. But I don't know about 2000,
>> and I think XP will start catching up to Unicode version 3 as
>> internal code. So, I think we should have care about them, more than
>> simply converting.
JA> I know about the compose character problem. But remember
JA> we only care about the wire format. Whatever Win2k and XP
JA> do about composite characters we can do exactly the same.
JA> Remember, whatever solution they use internally, they must
JA> use ucs2 on the wire, for backwards compatibility.
Ah.. That's the point I'm wondering. Are you sure?
It is true that MS people need backwards compatibility. But they
only need it to talk with old(if I may call it) Windows. For
communication between XP, they can do something else.
Just like we have problems due to using DOS local format, we have
high possibility of having same kind of problems using "OLD"
And so, I think we need to take care of them, before it comes on
front of us. It's because we have to change Samba to use Unicode as
internal code anyway, and implementation is yet not finished.
JA> As we don't interoperate with MacOS/X on the wire, we don't
JA> care what they use internally for their unicode character
I only give you MacOS/X so that two-word problems are right at the
back of us. I don't mean to wire between MacOS and Samba.
More information about the samba-technical