On Saturday 22 October 2005 17:12, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > > On 22-Oct-2005 Matthew Toseland wrote: > > There will have to be some arbitrary limits in the 0.7 metadata. > > > > Is a 256 byte limit on filenames reasonable? (We are talking about > > names > > in manifests or ZIP manifests here). Would it be better to use longer > > filenames? > > If you mean just for filenames, that should do, I would think. But if > you're talking about complete pathnames, then no, I'd suggest at least > doubling that figure.
I agree with this one. I have seen path/file exceed 256 with nasty results - it was with a backup system. Ed Tomlinson
