From owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org  Wed Dec 27 23:03:22 2000
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) id XAA81425;
	Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:03:22 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org)
Received: from tkc.att.ne.jp (tkc.att.ne.jp [165.76.16.7])
	by castle.jp.freebsd.org (8.9.3+3.2W/8.7.3) with ESMTP id XAA81420
	for <FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org>; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:03:22 +0900 (JST)
	(envelope-from mzaki@e-mail.ne.jp)
Received: from work.mzaki.nom (189.pool1.ipctokyo.att.ne.jp [165.76.245.189]) by tkc.att.ne.jp (8.8.8+Spin/3.6W-CONS(10/06/00)) id XAA25856; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:03:19 +0900 (JST)
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:03:19 +0900
Message-ID: <86r92um060.wl@tkc.att.ne.jp>
From: Motomichi Matsuzaki <mzaki@e-mail.ne.jp>
To: sobomax@FreeBSD.org
Cc: current@FreeBSD.org, bp@FreeBSD.org, audit@FreeBSD.org,
        FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: In your message of "Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:38:58 +0200"
	<3A49F0F2.69123A25@FreeBSD.org>
References: <3A49BF05.9098A5D8@FreeBSD.org>
	<86wvcmm4kc.wl@tkc.att.ne.jp>
	<3A49E668.FF0E701D@FreeBSD.org>
	<86u27qm24b.wl@tkc.att.ne.jp>
	<3A49F0F2.69123A25@FreeBSD.org>
X-Mailer: Wanderlust/1.1.1 (Purple Rain) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by WEMI 1.13.7 - "Shimada")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Precedence: list
X-Distribute: distribute version 2.1 (Alpha) patchlevel 24e+000315
X-Sequence: FreeBSD-tech-jp 2996
Subject: [FreeBSD-tech-jp 2996] Re: Unicode support in cd9660 [patch for review]
Errors-To: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
Sender: owner-FreeBSD-tech-jp@jp.freebsd.org
X-Originator: mzaki@e-mail.ne.jp



At Wed, 27 Dec 2000 15:38:58 +0200,
Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > But your solution is no effective and much harmful to multibyte users.
> You are not quite right. For multibyte users my solution (workaround?) is at least equial to the previous no-unicode case . I do
> not see how it can be harmful.

1. In just your workaround, multibyte users will take no merits.

2. Based on your direction, the size of loadable conversion table
   will immensely expand for multibyte support, or be abandoned.
   Fundamental misdesign will lead to such unfortunate situation.
   So I said your solution was harmful.

-- 
Motomichi Matsuzaki <mzaki@e-mail.ne.jp> 
Dept. of Biological Sciences, Grad. School of Science, Univ. of Tokyo, Japan 
      
