Please see below ...
Joe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 November 2000 17:31
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Outstanding bugs
>
> > You surely can't be telling me that adding a *few more bytes* to
> > a string is going to adversely affect the memory requirements
> > for Arachne ?!!!
>
> It's added to quite some places, and we can't just add 10 or so - the RFC
> suggests more (sorry can't remember the exact number right now).
>
[da Silva, Joe]
Firstly, strings in C (AFAIK) are always passed by reference
(ie. using pointers), not by value (not an option in C, I think),
so as this string gets "passed" from one routine to another,
it doesn't consume the extra bytes each time.
Secondly, I really don't care (any more than you or Michael
do) about whether Arachne meets the standard in this regard.
All that is required is a *practical* limit, and quite frankly, a
limit of just 40 characters is a bit ridiculous! As an arbitrary
limit, I would think 80 characters would be more appropriate
(but hey, even 64 would be a big help!).
>
> > I also don't understand what you mean about "useless (who
> > would have time to write it on the URL bar?)" - if I want or
> > need to go to such a URL, then obviously my typing skills
> > are not so poor that I am unable to type such a URL !
> > How else do I get to such a URL (change browsers?) ???
>
> I wouldn't go there, and I think I'm speaking for the majority of users.
>
[da Silva, Joe]
This is the part that I *really* don't understand! Arachne users
have no control over domain names - the web site owners do.
Likewise, they really don't have a choice as to which URL's
to visit for stuff they need. It's not as if all web sites have a
mirror site, is it? And even if they did, what if the mirror sites
had an even *longer* domain name (they very often do!) ?
Please forgive me if I'm being too "blunt" here, but I am truely
astounded by your perspective on this! ...
