From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261943AbVFQM4K (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:56:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261951AbVFQM4K (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:56:10 -0400 Received: from perpugilliam.csclub.uwaterloo.ca ([129.97.134.31]:35027 "EHLO perpugilliam.csclub.uwaterloo.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261943AbVFQM4H (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:56:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 08:56:07 -0400 To: Patrick McFarland Cc: "Richard B. Johnson" , Lukasz Stelmach , mru@inprovide.com, "Alexander E. Patrakov" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: A Great Idea (tm) about reimplementing NLS. Message-ID: <20050617125607.GA23488@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <20050616150419.GY23488@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200506162118.18470.pmcfarland@downeast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200506162118.18470.pmcfarland@downeast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: lsorense@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Lennart Sorensen) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 09:18:06PM -0400, Patrick McFarland wrote: > On Thursday 16 June 2005 11:04 am, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > Most people seem happy with 50 or so being a good limit even though many > > systems support much longer. > > 50 characters or 50 bytes? Because in the case of UTF-8, if you do a lot of > three byte characters (which require four bites to encode), 50 bytes is very > short. I would think most languages that need 2 or 3 bytes per character would need a lot less characters, although I think I can think of a few cases where that isn't true. Well how about making it '50 characters seems plenty for most people to be happy'. If you can handle a couple hundred bytes that should be ok, and I think most filesystems can. Len Sorensen