Re: Joliet extensions and files with no filename extension

["Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup gmx net>]

Hi,

mixed research results so far:

- 2 Microsoft "Technet Toolbox" DVDs which they distributed via german
  Linux Magazin contain no Joliet but rather a hybrid ISO 9660 / UDF
  filesystem.
  Somewhere i must have a Windows 95 CD which i got with a 133 MHz PC ...

- /usr/src/linux-source-3.16/fs/isofs/joliet.c
  expects ECMA-119 compliant names but does not insist in them.

  Here it removes ";1" if present:

        if ((len > 2) && (outname[len-2] == ';') && (outname[len-1] == '1'))
                len -= 2;

  Here it removes the trailing dot.

        /*
         * Windows doesn't like periods at the end of a name,
         * so neither do we
         */
        while (len >= 2 && (outname[len-1] == '.'))
                len--;

  The comment appears somewhat mistaken. The dot is SEPARATOR 1 and
  thus mandatory under ECMA-119 / ISO 9660 specs ... as i understand them.

  To inspect the cd9660 drivers of the BSDs or the High Sierra driver
  of Solaris seems futile. These ISO 9660 implementations are too poor
  to serve as guideline. (No large data files, no directory entries at
  high addresses, on solaris one cannot mount older sessions, ...)


Microsoft's habits would be the benchmark. It's their specs.
(Reasonable systems mount the ISO 9660 tree and show Rock Ridge names.)

Brasero development should nevertheless consider to join the habit
of mkisofs and xorriso's default, not to append dots and ";1".
See in my previous mail:
        iso_write_opts_set_no_force_dots(opts, 2);


Have a nice day :)

Thomas