Re: [PATCH] Try URI quoting for embedded TAB and LF in pathnames

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:

Your email message suggests that we need to be cautious here.
That message contained UTF-8 text but its header said "Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1".

Well, my email message was wrong and evil, because it _mixed_ two 
different encodings in the same text. No sane client could have shown them 
both at the same time - but especially with a stupid client, you could 
have changed your terminal to show either one or the other by switching 
from utf-8 to latin1 encoding and doing a refresh.

In other words, my email really was a nasty case of not one or the other, 
but both.

Now, I believe patches can actually be that way - it's not at all 
impossible to have a diff where the _filename_ is utf-8, but the content 
of the patch itself is some byte-encoding like latin1. Or the other way 
around.

If we're still having problems like this in 2005 then I guess we need
to deal with them.  This suggests we should be escaping every
non-ASCII byte, at least for patches designed to be emailed robustly.

I find that email is very robust - it's basically 8-bit clean. No 
character encoding, no crap. Just a byte stream. It really _is_ the most 
reliable format.

Now, a lot of email clients are really weak in _showing_ it, and as 
mentioned, the email that mixed both is fundamentally not something you 
really even _can_ show sanely. But who cares? What matters is not what it 
looks like, but what it _saves_ as. If you save the email message, it 
should come out as the same reliable 8-bit byte stream, or your client is 
actively corrupting messages rather than just showing them.

This is really what my argument boils down to: character set encoding 
should _not_ EVER affect the _transfer_ of the data. It doesn't matter if 
something is latin1 or utf-8, the only thing that matters is the byte 
sequence. Only when you _display_ it should you try to figure out what the 
byte sequence possibly means.

So I repeat: 
 - escape as little as possible
 - make the _viewer_ decide how to view it.

Yes, if people use "cat" to view patches, it can be dangerous. But that's 
_their_ problem.

		Linus

Linus Torvalds wrote:

Now, I believe patches can actually be that way - it's not at all 
impossible to have a diff where the _filename_ is utf-8, but the content 
of the patch itself is some byte-encoding like latin1. Or the other way 
around.

Or both.  Trivial example: a patch to change names in comments from ISO 
8859-1 to UTF-8.

	-hpa

Hi,

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Yes, if people use "cat" to view patches, it can be dangerous. But that's 
_their_ problem.

No, that is the cat's problem. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Ciao,
Dscho