On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 02:05:51PM -0500, Kevin Ballard wrote:
quoted text
> You're right, but it doesn't have to treat it as a binary stream at the 
> level I care about. I mean, no matter what you do at some level the string 
> is evaluated as a binary stream. For our purposes, just redefine the 
> hashing algorithm to hash all equivalent strings the same, and you can 
> implement that by using SHA1 on a particular encoding of the string.

That's horribly broken, for a couple of reasons.  First of all,
changing the hash algorithm breaks compatibility with existing
repositories; sure, you can try to guess what will least likely break
existing repository (which won't be the native MacOSX normalization
algorithm, since it's more likely the combined character will likely
be used on other environments), but there's still no guarantee there
aren't filenames that use some other form of byte-string for the
filename.

Secondly, the hash algorithm would not be stable.  Unicode is not
static, and new characters can get added that may be composable, and
thus would be normalized differently.  This is one of the reasons why
Unicode is so horribly broken as a standard.  It was originally
created by representatives from the printing world that were horribly
clueless about what was needed with respect to canonicalization
representation, so they compromised allowed both forms, not realizing
what a massive f*ckup this would cause later on.  So people have over
the years piled kludges on top of kludges in order to make Unicode
"work".  

So we can't blame all of the craziness on the MacOS designers,
although they have seen to have been very creative about how to take a
bad situation and make it worse....

					- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html