okuyamak at dd.iij4u.or.jp
Tue May 22 04:30:09 GMT 2001
>>>>> "AT" == Andrew Tridgell <tridge at samba.org> writes:
>> Ah.. That's the point I'm wondering. Are you sure?
AT> There is only 1 bit in the protocol to choose to enable unicode
AT> (actually, that bit appears at several points in the protocol, but
AT> thats a detail). It can be on or off, nothing else. To use unicode
AT> varients MS would need to add another level of negotiation. If they do
AT> that then we will think about coping with it, but until then it is
It seems like Microsoft is having high enough wall to overcome
before they start using multi-word characters on Unicode.
Then, we don't need to care for now.
thanks for the key point.
AT> Basically they have embedded 2 byte unicode pretty hard into the
AT> protocol. It would be a fairly major event for them to change that.
But Microsoft is very good at having incompatibility, you know.
# Think about file format of MS-Word and MS-Excel....
So I needed to know how high wall they have to overcome, to get
satisfied. Not only that they have wall.
More information about the samba-technical