Well, what I realized right now is that this sort of "transparency" may not even have to be handled by guix at all. If we remember the fact that we're on a unix-based system, a user who really wants to install some piece of software with a unicode name, but doesn't know how to type the requisite characters could always use the help of an external program to do transliteration to another alphabet for him (e.g., translit from the perl-lingua-translit package):
guix install $(echo imaginari-program | translit -t "ISO 9" -r) On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 7:32 PM Kaelyn <kaelyn.al...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > A couple of small early-morning (for me) comments below... not for or against > the idea of percent encoding, but as a little bit of food for thought while > pondering how to handle Unicode in package names and/or store paths. > > On Friday, August 25th, 2023 at 2:01 PM, Eidvilas Markevičius > <markeviciuseidvi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Although now, just a few hours later, I'm having second thoughts on > > this. When you really think about it, it's very unlinkely that some > > user would prefer typing something like > > > > guix install > > %D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC > > > > over > > > > guix install имагинари-програм > > I imagine that, for usability, the percent encoding (or other encoding or > transliteration) of non-ASCII characters could be handled transparently, i.e. > for "guix install имагинари-програм", guix would translate > "имагинари-програм" to the encoded form for operations. And if the escape > character (e.g. the "%" in percent encoding) isn't also a valid character for > store or package names then the values can be handled transparently. For > example, both "guix install git" and "guix install %67%69%74" and "guix > install g%69t" would all install git. > > > even if they don't have the russian (or whatever other language) > > keyboard layout set up on their system, so just for accessability > > purposes, the solution wouldn't be all that great. > > > It would also make > > store name unnecessarily long (they're already long as is), and > > there's a 255 char limit for filenames that we have to keep in mind as > > well. Searching the store using standard utilities such as find and > > grep would too, as a consequence, > > I split out the quote above as a bit of reference. While I agree that we have > to keep in mind the 255 char limit for filenames, with percent encoding > causing a single byte in ASCII or UTF-8 to become ~3 bytes (with iirc most > non-latin characters having multi-byte encodings in UTF-8) and the store > hashes being a 33 byte prefix (counting the dash), 255 chars is still quite a > bit. Specifically, the extracted quote above--without the "> " prefixes and > with line breaks treated as single characters--is exactly 255 characters. (I > find a bit of readable text to be helpful for wrapping my brain around a > value like "255 characters".) > > Cheers, > Kaelyn > > > break... There's just too many > > problems with this. > > > > I believe what Julien proposed is the most reasonable solution: > > unrestrict unicode characters in the store and (maybe) make it a > > project policy to not put unicode characters inside package names > > (however, personally I wouldn't be against that either). > > > > Now ensuring that URIs don't break, especially for substitute > > provision, should also be taken into consideration, but this can be > > handled separately. > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:14 PM Eidvilas Markevičius > > markeviciuseidvi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 11:37 AM Nathan Dehnel ncdeh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > What you could do is implement percent encoding: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent-encoding > > > > -Allows you to store package titles in any language in an encoded form > > > > -Allows the titles to be typed on latin keyboards > > > > -Allows the packages to be accessed through URIs in the future without > > > > causing problems > > > > > > Now that's an idea. I didn't really thought of that. Although it'd > > > probably be trickier to implement in order to make all the tooling > > > compatible. I think that might be a good solution nonetheless.
