>> > 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 shoul
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)
>> > 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 shoul
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)