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

Re: Filename encodings under Win32

Expand Messages
  • Tony Mechelynck
    ... [...] ... Took me some figuring too. A few hours ago I uploaded my solution to vim-onlline (set_utf8.vim,
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.