From: Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 04 1997 - 03:58:25 CST
sommar@algonet.se (Erland Sommarskog) wrote:
>Charles Lindsey (chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk) writes:
>>No, you can't do that, because a line in the newsgroups file is already
>>expected to fit within 79 characters.
>Stupid question: is the 79-char limit defined in an RFC somewhere
>or is just convention? I have to say that it seems too narrow anyway.
>And with newsgroups file not being used by many readers, I'm skeptic
>to have size limits because of it.
Just because some broken readers don't give you access to the newsgroups
file ...
Personally, I find myself referring to that file frequently.
However, we are trying, elsewhere in our document, so say that lines
intended to be read by humans (notably the body) SHOULD fit into 79
characters (that is why we are trying to allow Newsgroup and Path headers
to be wrapped). Lines in the newsgroups file are also intended to be read
by humans. Ergo ...
And in trying to manage the uk.* hierarchy, I have to expend much effort
in persuading writers of RFDs to provide conforming newsgroup lines. The
only definitive text on the matter at the moment is a FAQ by Russ. Perhaps
he would care to comment. (BTW Russ, when is that FAQ going to have a
permanent archive with a URL?) I think at some points in our document we
are going to have to specify limits that are for human convenience rather
than technical necessity. After all, humans are the ultimate customers. We
are not just trying to conctruct a means for computers to speak to one
another for their own amusement :-)
Note that the line for the newsgroups file is already provided for in our
draft for the newgroup command.
At any rate, for human convenience, I think the length of newsgroup
components should be fixed at one of 14, 16, 24 or 32 (visible characters,
that is).
>Kai Henningsen wrote:
>>Anything else should only be cases of obvious potential for
>>harm, which essentially reduces to some specific ASCII characters like
>>":%/&*?" (exact set TBD, but think "URL syntax" and "special shell
>>characters". No non-ASCII characters should be on that list, and certainly
>>not ASCII upper case. Leave that to hierarchy-specific rules.
>I don't think characters should be outlawed because they look ugly.
>Possibly you could include a SHOULD NOT for them; however as long
>as the characters do not cause technical obstacles, or may cause
>confusion by similarity (as the no-break space), I see no reason
>to outlaw any characters. Leave that decision to the policy-makers
>of each hierarchy.
You will break existing software (notably CNEWS) if you permit characters
other than lowercase, '+', '-', '_' in newsgroup names. What is the
benefit? To allow people to create even more joke names in alt.*?
-- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------- Email: chl@clw.cs.man.ac.uk Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Voice/Fax: +44 161 437 4506 Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5