Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Filename encodings under Win32

Expand Messages
  • Camillo Särs
    ... Right, I forgot about those. AFAIK, the fuctions do not fail silently in those cases, so it s just (yet) more work. Essentially, file names then come
    Message 1 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Bram Moolenaar wrote:
      > On Windows NT/XP there are also restrictions, especially when using
      > non-NTFS filesystems.

      Right, I forgot about those. AFAIK, the fuctions do not fail silently in
      those cases, so it's just (yet) more work. Essentially, file names then
      come from a restricted charset (code page limits).

      > There was a discussion about this in the Linux UTF-8 maillist a
      > long time ago. There was no good universal solution
      > for handling filenames that they could come up with.

      I bet. For many systems, the current behavior is adequate even if
      technically speaking wrong. I'm not trying to propose a universal
      solution, I'm just advocating the view that on win32, vim should do the
      "windows thing" with unicode/utf-8.

      > Vim could use Unicode functions for accessing files, but this will be a
      > huge change.

      Why so? The code earlier in this thread probably did much of what is
      needed. It also involved numerous other changes, which I ignored. I'm not
      being nosy, I'm just curious why this would be a "huge change". It's not
      the file contents we are getting at, it's the filenames (and the GUI).

      Also note that when using the native code page as the encoding (read:
      latin1), using the ANSI functions do work as expected. So the fixes would
      only need to concern the UTF-8 encoding, if you get picky. :)

      > Requires lots of testing.

      That's unicode for you. However, deriving a decent test set using
      available unicode test files should be a fairly straight-forward thing.

      > Main problem is when 'encoding' is not a Unicode encoding, then conversions
      > need to be done, which may fail.

      But what I assume you are doing now is even worse, isn't it? Essentially
      you are be feeding some user-selected encoding to functions that require
      ANSI characters. How's that for "a lot of testing"?

      Conversions from almost any encoding to unicode should work. I would not
      expect major trouble there. And note that if the conversion from the
      encoding to unicode fails, I expect that the current usage would fail even
      more severely. And there haven't been reports of that, has there?

      There certainly are tricky encodings that could cause problems. However,
      I'm mostly concerned with the basic use case of utf-8 and
      "fileencodings=ucs-bom,utf-8,latin1". This under a code page of cp1252.

      > If you use filenames that cannot be represented in the active codepage,
      > you probably have problems with other programs.

      But I have filenames that can be represented in the active code page
      (å.txt), but which get encoded into incompatible UTF-8 characters!

      > Thus sticking with the active codepage functions isn't too bad.

      If it worked that way, but it doesn't. Setting "encoding=utf-8" changes
      that behavior - only us-ascii is usable in filenames.

      > But then Vim needs to convert from 'encoding' to the active codepage!

      That would help most users. Including me. But it would not be the
      "ultimate" solution to unicode on win32, as it would still cause trouble
      with characters outside the codepage. As I see it, the easiest fix is
      actually using the unicode-api, as there are less (or no) conversion
      failures that way.

      > The file names are handled as byte strings. Thus so long as you use the
      > right bytes it should work. Problem is when you are typing/editing with
      > a different encoding from the active codepage.

      My point exactly! :)

      > Why would 'termencoding' be "utf-8"? This won't work, unless you are
      > using an xterm on MS-Windows.

      Yeah, but that's what you get if you just blindly do "set encoding=utf-8".
      Took me a while to figure that one out. I need to do "set
      termencoding=cp1252" first, or the "let &termencoding = &encoding". Not
      exactly transparent to non-experts.

      > The default 'termencoding' is empty, which means 'encoding' is used.
      > There is no better default.

      On Windows, I'd say "detect active code page" is the right choice.

      > When you change 'encoding' you might have to change 'termencoding' as
      > well, but this depends on your situation.

      As noted above, that's the unintuitive behavior I was getting at. A
      windows user, knowing that unicode is the native charset, does a "set
      encoding=utf-8" and expects things to work. They don't, but depending on
      the language, it may take a while before a non-ascii character is entered.

      >>- The default fileencoding breaks when "going UTF-8", most probably a
      >>better behavior would be to default to the ACP always.
      >
      > 'fileencoding' is set when reading a file. Perhaps you mean
      > 'fileencodings'? This one needs to be tweaked by the user, because it
      > depends on what kind of files you edit. Main problem is that an ASCII
      > file can be any encoding, Vim can't detect what it is, thus the user has
      > to specify what he wants Vim to do with it.

      Yes, I was unclear. Let me elaborate, although this point is rather
      exotic, and you can safely ignore me. :)

      When setting "encoding=utf-8", any new files will suddenly be utf-8 as
      well. For "ordinary" windows users, this may not be the desired result.
      What I was getting at was that *perhaps* the default fileencoding should be
      "cp####" in this case, unless the user explicitly sets it to something else
      (presumably utf-8). Before you object, yes, that's silly.

      Why use "encoding=utf-8" if you still want to create new files as ANSI?
      Well, quite a few windows applications don't do UTF-8. But using UTF-8
      internally still allows users to *transparently* edit existing
      unicode/utf-8 files without conversions.

      Anyway, I digress. This thought of mine was not that bright. Just forget it.

      >>- Also, my vim (6.2) defaults to "latin1", not my current codepage. That
      >>would indicate that the ACP detection does not work.
      >
      > Where does it use "latin1"? Not in 'encoding', I suppose.

      Yes. Without a _vimrc, I get:
      encoding=latin1
      fileencodings=ucs-bom
      termencoding=

      Thus changing the encoding only has funny effects.

      > Mostly it's quite more complicated. Different users have different
      > situations, it is hard to think of solutions that work for most people.

      Well, if you decide to make the unicode implementation work as it should,
      most people should be able to get what they want. It might involve a bit
      of tweaking, but nothing more.

      > The problem is that conversions to/from Unicode only work when you know
      > the encoding of the text you are converting. The encoding isn't always
      > known. Vim sometimes uses "latin1", so that you at least get 8-bit
      > clean editing, even though the actual encoding is unknown.

      I claim that on Windows, you should always have a good idea of the
      encoding. It's either explicitly set by the user, "cp####", or unicode.
      Windows has good support for converting ANSI to unicode, so this should be
      a non-issue. And again, as this is about non-UTF-8 data, you already have
      this problem anyway, because you are calling the ANSI functions with the
      "unknown" data. That it works should prove my point. ;-)

      But in the universal case, I agree with you.

      >>On Win9x, vim should use ANSI apis. The only thing missing is again the
      >>encoding/decoding, although it's trickier with the ANSI apis. There are
      >>many cases where an user would enter UTF-8 stuff that doesn't smootly
      >>convert to the current CP. I think vim's current code should detect that
      >>easily.
      >
      > You can use a few Unicode functions on Win9x, we already do. I don't
      > see a reason to change this.

      Sorry, I didn't want to imply that. I agree that we should stick to the
      unicode functions that are supported on Win9x, and only revert to ANSI
      "when forced".

      Camillo
      --
      Camillo Särs <+ged+@...> ** Aim for the impossible and you
      <http://www.iki.fi/+ged> ** will achieve the improbable.
      PGP public key available **
    • Bram Moolenaar
      ... Because every fopen(), stat() etc. will have to be changed. ... This only means extra work, since an if (encoding == ...) has to be added to select
      Message 2 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Camillo wrote:

        > > Vim could use Unicode functions for accessing files, but this will be a
        > > huge change.
        >
        > Why so? The code earlier in this thread probably did much of what is
        > needed. It also involved numerous other changes, which I ignored. I'm not
        > being nosy, I'm just curious why this would be a "huge change". It's not
        > the file contents we are getting at, it's the filenames (and the GUI).

        Because every fopen(), stat() etc. will have to be changed.

        > Also note that when using the native code page as the encoding (read:
        > latin1), using the ANSI functions do work as expected. So the fixes would
        > only need to concern the UTF-8 encoding, if you get picky. :)

        This only means extra work, since an "if (encoding == ...)" has to be
        added to select between the traditional file access method and the
        Unicode method.

        > > Requires lots of testing.
        >
        > That's unicode for you. However, deriving a decent test set using
        > available unicode test files should be a fairly straight-forward thing.

        No, it's actually impossible to test this automatically. It involves
        creating various Win32 environments with code page settings, network
        filesystems and installed libraries. Only end-user tests can discover
        the real problems.

        > > Main problem is when 'encoding' is not a Unicode encoding, then conversions
        > > need to be done, which may fail.
        >
        > But what I assume you are doing now is even worse, isn't it? Essentially
        > you are be feeding some user-selected encoding to functions that require
        > ANSI characters. How's that for "a lot of testing"?

        The currently used functions work fine for accessing existing files.
        It's only when typing a new name or when displaying the name that
        problems may occur.

        > Conversions from almost any encoding to unicode should work. I would not
        > expect major trouble there. And note that if the conversion from the
        > encoding to unicode fails, I expect that the current usage would fail even
        > more severely. And there haven't been reports of that, has there?

        Main problem is that sometimes we don't know what the encoding is. In
        that situation you can treat the filename as a sequence of bytes in most
        places, but conversion is impossible. This happens more often than you
        would expect. Put a floppy disk or CD into your computer...

        There is also the situation that Vim uses the active codepage, but the
        file is actually in another encoding that could not be detected. Then
        doing "gf" on a filename will work if you don't do conversion, but it
        will fail if you try converting with the wrong encoding in mind.

        > > Thus sticking with the active codepage functions isn't too bad.
        >
        > If it worked that way, but it doesn't. Setting "encoding=utf-8" changes
        > that behavior - only us-ascii is usable in filenames.

        I don't see why. You can use a file selector to open any file and write
        it back under the same name. Vim doesn't need to know the encoding of
        the filename that way.

        If you type a file name in utf-8 it won't work properly, thus you have
        to use another method to obtain the file name. It's clumsy, I know.

        > > But then Vim needs to convert from 'encoding' to the active codepage!
        >
        > That would help most users. Including me. But it would not be the
        > "ultimate" solution to unicode on win32, as it would still cause trouble
        > with characters outside the codepage. As I see it, the easiest fix is
        > actually using the unicode-api, as there are less (or no) conversion
        > failures that way.

        As said above, this only works if we are 100% sure of what encoding the
        text (filename) is in, and we don't always know that.

        > > Why would 'termencoding' be "utf-8"? This won't work, unless you are
        > > using an xterm on MS-Windows.
        >
        > Yeah, but that's what you get if you just blindly do "set encoding=utf-8".
        > Took me a while to figure that one out. I need to do "set
        > termencoding=cp1252" first, or the "let &termencoding = &encoding". Not
        > exactly transparent to non-experts.

        Setting 'encoding' is full of side effects. There is a clear warning in
        the docs about this.

        > > The default 'termencoding' is empty, which means 'encoding' is used.
        > > There is no better default.
        >
        > On Windows, I'd say "detect active code page" is the right choice.

        I remember this was proposed before, I can't remember why we didn't do
        it this way. Windows is different here, since we can find out what the
        active codepage is. On Unix it's not that clear (e.g., depends on what
        options the xterm was started with). Consistency between systems is
        preferred.

        > >>- Also, my vim (6.2) defaults to "latin1", not my current codepage. That
        > >>would indicate that the ACP detection does not work.
        > >
        > > Where does it use "latin1"? Not in 'encoding', I suppose.
        >
        > Yes. Without a _vimrc, I get:
        > encoding=latin1
        > fileencodings=ucs-bom
        > termencoding=
        >
        > Thus changing the encoding only has funny effects.

        Your active codepage must be latin1 then. Vim gets the default from the
        active codepage.

        --
        hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
        192. Your boss asks you to "go fer" coffee and you come up with 235 FTP sites.

        /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
        /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
        \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
        \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
      • Camillo Särs
        ... Right. You re not using Windows apis, of course. But to do things correctly, you would have to make sure that the fopen() etc. implementations [in
        Message 3 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Bram Moolenaar wrote:
          > Because every fopen(), stat() etc. will have to be changed.

          Right. You're not using Windows apis, of course. But to do things
          correctly, you would have to make sure that the fopen() etc.
          implementations [in Windows] either convert the strings they receive or
          only are called with valid Windows file names. Converting internally may
          be risky, because you'd need a way to convey the encoding into the functions.

          > Main problem is that sometimes we don't know what the encoding is.

          On Windows? I would disagree here. Any filesystem mounted by Windows
          should be mounted in a way that adheres to Windows naming conventions.
          We're not discussing file contents here.

          > In that situation you can treat the filename as a sequence of bytes in most
          > places, but conversion is impossible. This happens more often than you
          > would expect. Put a floppy disk or CD into your computer...

          So why convert it? :) The current display/saving problems stem from the
          fact that the file name is interpreted as UTF-8, a coding which Windows
          does not recognize for file names or strings.

          > There is also the situation that Vim uses the active codepage, but the
          > file is actually in another encoding that could not be detected. Then
          > doing "gf" on a filename will work if you don't do conversion, but it
          > will fail if you try converting with the wrong encoding in mind.

          AFAIK, Windows will internally convert the path into Unicode if you call
          the ANSI function. Thus if gf succeeds as you describe, it should succeed
          if you use the unicode api as well. In both cases a 8-bit binary string
          undergoes "cp2unicode" conversion.

          > I don't see why. You can use a file selector to open any file and write
          > it back under the same name.

          Uhm. Thanks. I'm so used to using :edit and :view that this alternative
          hadn't even crossed my mind.

          > If you type a file name in utf-8 it won't work properly, thus you have
          > to use another method to obtain the file name. It's clumsy, I know.

          But it's a workaround. But my title bar still is a mess.

          > As said above, this only works if we are 100% sure of what encoding the
          > text (filename) is in, and we don't always know that.

          We should be sure. And *if* we get it wrong, the user should be able to
          correct it.

          > I remember this was proposed before, I can't remember why we didn't do
          > it this way. Windows is different here, since we can find out what the
          > active codepage is. On Unix it's not that clear (e.g., depends on what
          > options the xterm was started with). Consistency between systems is
          > preferred.

          I would disagree on consistency here. On windows, the encoding is either
          ANSI or unicode, or then it has been explicitly set to something known.
          And as long as we know the encoding, let's use it.

          > Your active codepage must be latin1 then. Vim gets the default from the
          > active codepage.

          My code page is cp1252. It's not latin1 (iso-8859-1). In practice, both
          are 8-bit-raw.

          Camillo
          --
          Camillo Särs <+ged+@...> ** Aim for the impossible and you
          <http://www.iki.fi/+ged> ** will achieve the improbable.
          PGP public key available **
        • Tony Mechelynck
          ... [...] ... [...] Glenn Maynard wants encoding to default to utf-8 regardless of the active codepage. IMHO this would require termencoding to default,
          Message 4 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Bram Moolenaar <Bram@...> wrote:
            > Camillo wrote:
            [...]
            > > - The default termencoding should be set intelligently, UTF-8 as
            > > termencoding breaks input of non-ascii.
            >
            > Why would 'termencoding' be "utf-8"? This won't work, unless you are
            > using an xterm on MS-Windows. The default 'termencoding' is empty,
            > which means 'encoding' is used. There is no better default. When you
            > change 'encoding' you might have to change 'termencoding' as well, but
            > this depends on your situation.
            [...]

            Glenn Maynard wants 'encoding' to default to "utf-8" regardless of the
            active codepage. IMHO this would require 'termencoding' to default, not to
            the empty string, but to what is currently the default 'encoding', namely
            the active codepage. Such change in the 'termencoding' default would (again,
            IMHO) be a GoodThing anyway, since it would allow the keyboard to go on
            working whether or not the user alters 'encoding'. Of course it is already
            possible to do

            if &termencoding == ""
            let &termencoding = &encoding
            endif

            but wouldn't it make it easier to the user (more user friendly) to have
            'termencoding' default to the ACP not implicitly (&termencoding == "" and
            'encoding' set to the ACP) but explicitly (by defaulting 'termencoding' to a
            nonempty value representing the active codepage)? -- And it would make the
            above "if" statement unnecessary but not harmful, so existing scripts should
            not be broken.

            Regards,
            Tony.
          • Tony Mechelynck
            ... [...] ... Took me some figuring too. A few hours ago I uploaded my solution to vim-onlline (set_utf8.vim,
            Message 5 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Camillo Särs <ged@...> wrote:
              > Bram Moolenaar wrote:
              [...]
              > > Why would 'termencoding' be "utf-8"? This won't work, unless you
              > > are
              > > using an xterm on MS-Windows.
              >
              > Yeah, but that's what you get if you just blindly do "set
              > encoding=utf-8". Took me a while to figure that one out. I need to
              > do "set termencoding=cp1252" first, or the "let &termencoding =
              > &encoding". Not exactly transparent to non-experts.

              Took me some figuring too. A few hours ago I uploaded my solution to
              vim-onlline (set_utf8.vim,
              http://vim.sourceforge.net/scripts/script.php?script_id=789 ). I hope it
              will make it transparent to non-experts. Yet I still believe that defaulting
              'termencoding' to the locale's charset would be better than leaving it
              empty -- and such a change wouldn't break the above-mentioned script, you're
              welcome to look at its source.
              >
              > > The default 'termencoding' is empty, which means 'encoding' is used.
              > > There is no better default.
              >
              > On Windows, I'd say "detect active code page" is the right choice.
              >
              > > When you change 'encoding' you might have to change 'termencoding'
              > > as
              > > well, but this depends on your situation.
              >
              > As noted above, that's the unintuitive behavior I was getting at. A
              > windows user, knowing that unicode is the native charset, does a "set
              > encoding=utf-8" and expects things to work. They don't, but
              > depending on
              > the language, it may take a while before a non-ascii character is
              > entered.
              [...]

              Regards,
              Tony.
            • Bram Moolenaar
              ... A file name may appear in a file (e.g., a list of files in a README file). And I don t know what happens with file names on removable media (e.g., a CD).
              Message 6 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Camillo wrote:

                > > Main problem is that sometimes we don't know what the encoding is.
                >
                > On Windows? I would disagree here. Any filesystem mounted by Windows
                > should be mounted in a way that adheres to Windows naming conventions.
                > We're not discussing file contents here.

                A file name may appear in a file (e.g., a list of files in a README
                file). And I don't know what happens with file names on removable media
                (e.g., a CD). Probably depends on the file system it contains. And
                networked file systems is another problem.

                > > In that situation you can treat the filename as a sequence of bytes in most
                > > places, but conversion is impossible. This happens more often than you
                > > would expect. Put a floppy disk or CD into your computer...
                >
                > So why convert it? :) The current display/saving problems stem from the
                > fact that the file name is interpreted as UTF-8, a coding which Windows
                > does not recognize for file names or strings.

                We need to locate places where the encoding is different from what a
                system function expects. There are still a few things that need to be
                fixed.

                > > There is also the situation that Vim uses the active codepage, but the
                > > file is actually in another encoding that could not be detected. Then
                > > doing "gf" on a filename will work if you don't do conversion, but it
                > > will fail if you try converting with the wrong encoding in mind.
                >
                > AFAIK, Windows will internally convert the path into Unicode if you call
                > the ANSI function. Thus if gf succeeds as you describe, it should succeed
                > if you use the unicode api as well. In both cases a 8-bit binary string
                > undergoes "cp2unicode" conversion.

                If Vim defaults to the active codepage then conversion to Unicode would
                do the same as using the ANSI function. Thus it's only a problem when
                'encoding' is different from the active codepage. And when 'encoding'
                is a Unicode variant we can use the "W" functions. Still, this means
                all fopen() and stat() calls must be adjusted. When 'encoding' is not
                the active codepage we could either leave the file name untranslated (as
                it's now) or convert it to Unicode. Don't know which one would work
                best...

                > > Your active codepage must be latin1 then. Vim gets the default from the
                > > active codepage.
                >
                > My code page is cp1252. It's not latin1 (iso-8859-1). In practice, both
                > are 8-bit-raw.

                cp1252 and latin1 are not identical, but for practical use they can be
                handled as the same encoding. Vim indeed uses this as the "raw" 8-bit
                encoding that avoids messing up your characters when you don't know what
                encoding it actually is.

                --
                hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                194. Your business cards contain your e-mail and home page address.

                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
                \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
              • Glenn Maynard
                Note that I ve upgraded, and I m not having problems with files saving incorrectly in enc=utf-8. The remaining problems are mostly cosmetic, except for not
                Message 7 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Note that I've upgraded, and I'm not having problems with files saving
                  incorrectly in enc=utf-8. The remaining problems are mostly cosmetic,
                  except for not being able to ":w 漢字.txt" with the ACP being Japanese.

                  On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                  > Because every fopen(), stat() etc. will have to be changed.

                  I don't think handling Unicode in filenames is worth it in Windows. It
                  takes so much work that the only applications I know of that support it
                  are ones that are compiled as native Unicode apps. The only exception
                  I've seen is FB2k.

                  It's certainly useful to be able to have multilingual filenames, but
                  Windows makes it so hard that people really wanting to do that probably
                  need a new OS.

                  > I don't see why. You can use a file selector to open any file and write
                  > it back under the same name. Vim doesn't need to know the encoding of
                  > the filename that way.

                  Consider the case where a filename in NT contains illegal data, eg. an
                  invalid two-byte SJIS sequence. When you call NT ANSI system calls, it
                  converts the buffers you pass it to WCHAR. That conversion would fail.

                  Are you worried about not being able to open files off eg. a slightly
                  corrupt/malformed floppy disc containing filenames that won't convert
                  cleanly? That seems no worse than not being able to use non-ACP
                  filenames. If that works, it seems a poor trade for not being able to
                  enter non-ASCII filenames in utf-8. ":w 漢字.txt" responding with
                  '"漢字.txt" [New]' and writing the filename correctly seems pretty
                  fundamental, for Japanese users on Japanese systems, and that doesn't
                  work with enc=utf-8.

                  > I remember this was proposed before, I can't remember why we didn't do
                  > it this way. Windows is different here, since we can find out what the
                  > active codepage is. On Unix it's not that clear (e.g., depends on what
                  > options the xterm was started with). Consistency between systems is
                  > preferred.

                  Windows and Unix handle encodings fundamentally differently, so complete
                  consistency means one or the other system not working as well. It seems
                  like "consistency to a fault". :)

                  Here's what I see, though: Windows APIs are always giving ACP or Unicode
                  data. Vim honors that for some code paths: input methods, copying to
                  and from the system clipboard. It ignores it and uses Unix paradigms
                  for others: filenames, most other ANSI calls.

                  The former, in my experience, work consistently; I can enter text with
                  the IME in both UTF-8 and CP932, and copy and paste reliably. The
                  latter do not: entered filenames don't work, non-ASCII text in the
                  titlebar shows <ab> hex values.

                  --
                  Glenn Maynard
                • Camillo Särs
                  ... Both floppies, CDs and network file systems are mounted by windows, and some translation of file names happens. AFAIK, you should be able to access all
                  Message 8 of 29 , Oct 13, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                    > A file name may appear in a file (e.g., a list of files in a README
                    > file). And I don't know what happens with file names on removable media
                    > (e.g., a CD). Probably depends on the file system it contains. And
                    > networked file systems is another problem.

                    Both floppies, CDs and network file systems are mounted by windows, and
                    "some" translation of file names happens. AFAIK, you should be able to
                    access all files on such file systems using WindowsNT naming conventions.
                    The file names may not be exactly what you anticipated, but they are
                    guaranteed to stay constant.

                    > We need to locate places where the encoding is different from what a
                    > system function expects. There are still a few things that need to be
                    > fixed.

                    Yup. As I'm not familiar with the vim sources, I don't know how much work
                    this would mean in reality. However, the set of functions is or should be
                    known, and fairly limited.

                    > When 'encoding' is not the active codepage we could either leave
                    > the file name untranslated (as it's now) or convert it to Unicode.
                    > Don't know which one would work best...

                    Me neither. But I think that a conversion to unicode should be "fairly"
                    straight-forward, as it is what NT does natively anyway. This leads me to
                    think that Vim should do the conversion, as it knows the encoding. Or
                    let's say, it thinks it knows it. :)

                    Cheers,
                    Camillo
                    --
                    Camillo Särs <+ged+@...> ** Aim for the impossible and you
                    <http://www.iki.fi/+ged> ** will achieve the improbable.
                    PGP public key available **
                  • Bram Moolenaar
                    ... So, what you suggest is to keep using the ordinary file system functions. But we must make sure that the file name is then in the active codepage
                    Message 9 of 29 , Oct 14, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Glenn Maynard wrote:

                      > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 02:25:04PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                      > > Because every fopen(), stat() etc. will have to be changed.
                      >
                      > I don't think handling Unicode in filenames is worth it in Windows. It
                      > takes so much work that the only applications I know of that support it
                      > are ones that are compiled as native Unicode apps. The only exception
                      > I've seen is FB2k.
                      >
                      > It's certainly useful to be able to have multilingual filenames, but
                      > Windows makes it so hard that people really wanting to do that probably
                      > need a new OS.

                      So, what you suggest is to keep using the ordinary file system
                      functions. But we must make sure that the file name is then in the
                      active codepage encoding. When obtaining the file name with a system
                      function (e.g., a directory listing or file browser) it will already be
                      in that encoding. But when the user types a file name it's in the
                      encoding specified with 'encoding'. This means we would need to convert
                      the file name from 'encoding' to the active codepage at some point.
                      And the reverse conversion is needed when using a filename as a text
                      string, e.g., for "%p and in the window title.

                      This is still complicated, but probably requires less changes than using
                      Unicode functions for all file access. I only foresee trouble when
                      'encoding' is set to a non-Unicode codepage different from the active
                      codepage and using a filename that contains non-ASCII characters.
                      Perhaps this situation is too weird to take into account?

                      > > I don't see why. You can use a file selector to open any file and write
                      > > it back under the same name. Vim doesn't need to know the encoding of
                      > > the filename that way.
                      >
                      > Consider the case where a filename in NT contains illegal data, eg. an
                      > invalid two-byte SJIS sequence. When you call NT ANSI system calls, it
                      > converts the buffers you pass it to WCHAR. That conversion would fail.
                      >
                      > Are you worried about not being able to open files off eg. a slightly
                      > corrupt/malformed floppy disc containing filenames that won't convert
                      > cleanly? That seems no worse than not being able to use non-ACP
                      > filenames. If that works, it seems a poor trade for not being able to
                      > enter non-ASCII filenames in utf-8. ":w $B4A;z(B.txt"
                      > responding with '"$B4A;z(B.txt" [New]' and writing the
                      > filename correctly seems pretty fundamental, for Japanese users on
                      > Japanese systems, and that doesn't work with enc=utf-8.

                      Yep, using conversions means failure is possible. And failure mostly
                      means the text is in a different encoding than expected. It would take
                      some time to figure out how to do this in a way that the user isn't
                      confused.

                      --
                      hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                      210. When you get a divorce, you don't care about who gets the children,
                      but discuss endlessly who can use the email address.

                      /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                      /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
                      \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                      \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
                    • Camillo Särs
                      ... While that may sound attractive at first, I would strongly dissuade from that solution. I consider it to be a myth that using multilingual filenames on
                      Message 10 of 29 , Oct 14, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                        > Glenn Maynard wrote:
                        >>It's certainly useful to be able to have multilingual filenames, but
                        >>Windows makes it so hard that people really wanting to do that probably
                        >>need a new OS.
                        >
                        > So, what you suggest is to keep using the ordinary file system
                        > functions. But we must make sure that the file name is then in the
                        > active codepage encoding.

                        While that may sound attractive at first, I would strongly dissuade from
                        that solution. I consider it to be a myth that using multilingual
                        filenames on Windows is hard. Under NT, it's should be a breeze for any
                        application that is even slightly Unicode-aware. When you decide to make
                        changes in Vim, it makes sense to look to the future and try to go the
                        "Unicode" way. XP Home Edition is gaining ground - fast.

                        Win9x is a mess, because it's just a version of DOS on hormones, and thus
                        is solidly entrenched in the single code page per application world. Using
                        the current code page should suffice there, though.

                        > This is still complicated, but probably requires less changes than using
                        > Unicode functions for all file access.

                        Why? I don't get it. You don't need to use Unicode functions for anything
                        except stuff that accepts strings. The current implementation is wrong,
                        because it feeds "encoding" text to ANSI functions. If you change it, I
                        don't see why doing a conversion to Unicode would be any different than a
                        conversion to ANSI, other than the fact than converting to ANSI is riskier.

                        <http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/> contains a lot of useful info. Quote:

                        "All Win32 APIs that take a text argument either as an input or output
                        variable have been provided with a generic function prototype and two
                        definitions: a version that is based on code pages or ANSI (called "A") to
                        handle code page-based text argument and a wide version (called "W ") to
                        handle Unicode."

                        For 9x, you might be interested in the "Microsoft Layer for Unicode"

                        > I only foresee trouble when 'encoding' is set to a non-Unicode
                        > codepage different from the active codepage and using
                        > a filename that contains non-ASCII characters.
                        > Perhaps this situation is too weird to take into account?

                        As long as you know the correct code page, you can use Windows APIs to
                        convert correctly. They take the code page as an argument.

                        Camillo
                        --
                        Camillo Särs <+ged+@...> ** Aim for the impossible and you
                        <http://www.iki.fi/+ged> ** will achieve the improbable.
                        PGP public key available **
                      • Bram Moolenaar
                        ... Vim not only supports Unicode but also many other encodings. When Vim would only use Unicode it would be simple, but that s not the situation. And above
                        Message 11 of 29 , Oct 14, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Camillo wrote:

                          > While that may sound attractive at first, I would strongly dissuade from
                          > that solution. I consider it to be a myth that using multilingual
                          > filenames on Windows is hard. Under NT, it's should be a breeze for any
                          > application that is even slightly Unicode-aware. When you decide to make
                          > changes in Vim, it makes sense to look to the future and try to go the
                          > "Unicode" way. XP Home Edition is gaining ground - fast.

                          Vim not only supports Unicode but also many other encodings. When Vim
                          would only use Unicode it would be simple, but that's not the situation.
                          And above that, Vim is also used on many other systems, and we try to
                          make it work the same way everywhere.

                          > > This is still complicated, but probably requires less changes than using
                          > > Unicode functions for all file access.
                          >
                          > Why? I don't get it. You don't need to use Unicode functions for anything
                          > except stuff that accepts strings. The current implementation is wrong,
                          > because it feeds "encoding" text to ANSI functions. If you change it, I
                          > don't see why doing a conversion to Unicode would be any different than a
                          > conversion to ANSI, other than the fact than converting to ANSI is riskier.
                          >
                          > <http://www.microsoft.com/globaldev/> contains a lot of useful info. Quote:
                          >
                          > "All Win32 APIs that take a text argument either as an input or output
                          > variable have been provided with a generic function prototype and two
                          > definitions: a version that is based on code pages or ANSI (called "A") to
                          > handle code page-based text argument and a wide version (called "W ") to
                          > handle Unicode."

                          Eh, what happens when I use fopen() or stat()? There is no ANSI or wide
                          version of these functions. And certainly not one that also works on
                          non-Win32 systems. And when using the wide version conversion needs to
                          be done from 'encoding' to Unicode, thus the conversion has to be there
                          as well. That's going to be a lot of work (many #ifdefs) and will
                          probably introduce new bugs.

                          > For 9x, you might be interested in the "Microsoft Layer for Unicode"
                          >
                          > > I only foresee trouble when 'encoding' is set to a non-Unicode
                          > > codepage different from the active codepage and using
                          > > a filename that contains non-ASCII characters.
                          > > Perhaps this situation is too weird to take into account?
                          >
                          > As long as you know the correct code page, you can use Windows APIs to
                          > convert correctly. They take the code page as an argument.

                          As mentioned before, we are not always sure what encoding the text has.
                          Conversion is then likely to fail. This especially happens for 8-bit
                          encodings, there is no way to automatically check what encoding these
                          files are.

                          I think we need a smart solution that doesn't attempt to handle all
                          situations but works predictably.

                          --
                          hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                          218. Your spouse hands you a gift wrapped magnet with your PC's name
                          on it and you accuse him or her of genocide.

                          /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                          /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
                          \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                          \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
                        • Glenn Maynard
                          ... It s not at all a myth if you want code that is 1: portable and 2: works on 9x, too. (If you can deal with nonportable code, you can use Windows s TCHAR
                          Message 12 of 29 , Oct 14, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > While that may sound attractive at first, I would strongly dissuade from
                            > that solution. I consider it to be a myth that using multilingual
                            > filenames on Windows is hard. Under NT, it's should be a breeze for any

                            It's not at all a myth if you want code that is 1: portable and 2: works
                            on 9x, too. (If you can deal with nonportable code, you can use Windows's
                            TCHAR mechanism, and if you don't care about anything but NT, you can write
                            a UTF-16-only app. Neither of these are the case here, though.)

                            It's not "hard", it's just "incredibly annoying".

                            On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 02:20:27PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                            > This is still complicated, but probably requires less changes than using
                            > Unicode functions for all file access. I only foresee trouble when
                            > 'encoding' is set to a non-Unicode codepage different from the active
                            > codepage and using a filename that contains non-ASCII characters.
                            > Perhaps this situation is too weird to take into account?

                            If "encoding" is not the ACP codepage, then the main problem is that the
                            user can enter characters that Vim simply can't put into a filename
                            (and in 9x, that the system can't, either).

                            I'd just do a conversion, and if the conversion fails, warn appropriately.

                            > Eh, what happens when I use fopen() or stat()? There is no ANSI or wide
                            > version of these functions. And certainly not one that also works on
                            > non-Win32 systems. And when using the wide version conversion needs to
                            > be done from 'encoding' to Unicode, thus the conversion has to be there
                            > as well. That's going to be a lot of work (many #ifdefs) and will
                            > probably introduce new bugs.

                            It's not that much work. Windows has _wfopen and _wstat. Vim already
                            has those abstracted (mch_fopen, mch_stat), so conversions would only
                            happen in one place (and in a place that's intended to be platform-
                            specific, mch_*). I believe the code I linked earlier did exactly this.

                            The only thing needed is sane error recovery.

                            > Yep, using conversions means failure is possible. And failure mostly
                            > means the text is in a different encoding than expected. It would take
                            > some time to figure out how to do this in a way that the user isn't
                            > confused.

                            Well, bear in mind the non-ACP case that already exists. If I create
                            "foo ♡.txt", and try to edit it with Vim, it edits "foo ?.txt" (which
                            it can't write, either, since "?" is an invalid character in Windows
                            filenames). I'd suggest that editing a file with an invalid character
                            (eg. invalid SJIS sequence) behave identically to editing a file with
                            a valid character that can't be referenced (eg. "foo ♡.txt").

                            --
                            Glenn Maynard
                          • Camillo Särs
                            ... Agreed. There s no way around that. ... Sounds very promising. It would be really great if it turns out that the changes are fairly minor. That way
                            Message 13 of 29 , Oct 14, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Glenn Maynard wrote:
                              > If "encoding" is not the ACP codepage, then the main problem is that the
                              > user can enter characters that Vim simply can't put into a filename
                              > (and in 9x, that the system can't, either).
                              >
                              > I'd just do a conversion, and if the conversion fails, warn appropriately.

                              Agreed. There's no way around that.

                              > It's not that much work. Windows has _wfopen and _wstat. Vim already
                              > has those abstracted (mch_fopen, mch_stat), so conversions would only
                              > happen in one place (and in a place that's intended to be platform-
                              > specific, mch_*). I believe the code I linked earlier did exactly this.
                              >
                              > The only thing needed is sane error recovery.

                              Sounds very promising. It would be really great if it turns out that the
                              changes are fairly minor. That way there's a chance they would get
                              implemented. :)

                              If you decide to try the proposed changes out, I'm prepared to do some
                              testing on a Win32 binary build. Sorry, can't build myself. :(

                              Camillo
                              --
                              Camillo Särs <+ged+@...> ** Aim for the impossible and you
                              <http://www.iki.fi/+ged> ** will achieve the improbable.
                              PGP public key available **
                            • Bram Moolenaar
                              ... It s more complicated then that. You can have filenames in the ACP, encoding and Unicode. Filenames are stored in various places inside Vim, which
                              Message 14 of 29 , Oct 15, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Glenn Maynard wrote:

                                > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 02:20:27PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote:
                                > > This is still complicated, but probably requires less changes than using
                                > > Unicode functions for all file access. I only foresee trouble when
                                > > 'encoding' is set to a non-Unicode codepage different from the active
                                > > codepage and using a filename that contains non-ASCII characters.
                                > > Perhaps this situation is too weird to take into account?
                                >
                                > If "encoding" is not the ACP codepage, then the main problem is that the
                                > user can enter characters that Vim simply can't put into a filename
                                > (and in 9x, that the system can't, either).
                                >
                                > I'd just do a conversion, and if the conversion fails, warn appropriately.

                                It's more complicated then that. You can have filenames in the ACP,
                                'encoding' and Unicode. Filenames are stored in various places inside
                                Vim, which encoding is used for each of them? Obviously, a filename
                                stored in buffer text and registers has to use 'encoding'.

                                It's less obvious what to use for internal structures, such as
                                curbuf->b_ffname. When 'encoding' is a Unicode encoding we can use
                                UTF-8, that can be converted to anything else. That also works when the
                                active codepage is not Unicode, we can use the wide functions then.

                                When 'encoding' is the active codepage (this is the default, should
                                happen a lot), we can use the active codepage. That avoids conversions
                                (which may fail). No need to use wide functions then.

                                The real problem is when 'encoding' is not the active codepage and it's
                                also not a Unicode encoding. We could simply skip the conversion then.
                                That doesn't work properly for non-ASCII characters, but it's how it
                                already works right now. The right way would be to convert the file
                                name to Unicode and use the wide functions.

                                I guess this means all filenames inside Vim are in 'encoding'. Where
                                needed, conversion needs to be done from/to Unicode and the wide
                                functions are to be used then.

                                The main thing to implement now is using the wide functions when
                                'encoding' is UTF-8. This only requires a simple conversion between
                                UTF-8 and UCS-16. I'll be waiting for a patch...

                                --
                                hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
                                231. You sprinkle Carpet Fresh on the rugs and put your vacuum cleaner
                                in the front doorway permanently so it always looks like you are
                                actually attempting to do something about that mess that has amassed
                                since you discovered the Internet.

                                /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                                /// Creator of Vim - Vi IMproved -- http://www.Vim.org \\\
                                \\\ Project leader for A-A-P -- http://www.A-A-P.org ///
                                \\\ Help AIDS victims, buy here: http://ICCF-Holland.org/click1.html ///
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.