Dnia 05-07-2007, czw o godzinie 16:49 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a): > > If the server could handle and client knows it could handle, it could > > use longer names. > > How does the client know?
It tried to put a long name in a minute ago and it succeeded. > > "640KB SHOULD be enough for anyone." > > We're talking about a handle for an IM contact or the name of a roster > group here, not the functioning of a complete operating system. Get some > perspective. I'm giving you the perspective. We'll defining standards for future use and we simply cannot envision what will be the future requirements. Many tried and failed miserably. Ergo - let's not introduce arbitrary restrictions where these are not needed. This is an implementation issue, so let the implementer and administrator decide. Your concern is clients failing roster sets. Mridul recommended a MINIMUM though and I'm all for for it. When you specify that server MUST handle at least 163 characters (yes Unicode characters, not bytes - again this is an implementation issue), then client authors could set the max limit on 163 and live perfectly fine. -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka Grp. http://www.xiaoka.com/
