Re: [9fans] blanks in file names

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Thu, Jul 04, 2002 at 07:34:25AM +0100, forsyth@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
> the problem rob alluded to, by analogy with NAT, should not
> arise within the Plan 9 system.  for instance, if i have a file
> of file names, can i read it in and be sure to access those names?
> if space is _ and _ is `boo!' it's anyone's guess.
> 
I think we're going somewhere <grin>

We already have shims between the conventional Plan 9 filesystem
and foreign ones.  These are our declared boundaries and it is
fairly clear what translations are required at each of these
boundaries.

It seems to me that Nemo is - perhaps unintentionally, certainly
not in an explicit fashion - creating an inner boundary that declares
the core of Plan 9 much more liberal and a shim is therefore
necessary so that the existing legacy applications can interact
with it.

I would vote for such a feature.  The kernel and 9P would be freed
of filename shackles, the shim would apply the existing rules.
Imagine, for example, a shim that would enable a 2nd Edition
application to access the 4th Edition filesystem.  Mapping filenames
to unique 27-character UTF8 strings with certain restrictions should
be possible through such a shim.

Even the choice of delimiter between path components would be
available to those willing to produce the necessary shim.

++L

PS: while checking the above, I was wondering where %q belongs in
that model.  I would think the shim must somehow provide the actual
quote and dequote operations.  Hm, maybe such a shim can also add
descriptive names and, shudder, access control lists in a Plan 9
friendly form.