[LSC] Long filenames in the official library

[Chris Dee]

I also accept, although I will need to think carefully about the impact on
the official part naming standards.

On the character set - I would veto the use of '#', due to the problems of
needing to deal with that within a URL. That's why we renamed the box3#8p
primitive. [A-Z],[a-z],[0-9], _ and - are OK with me.  

Chris


> -----Original Message-----

> From: lsc-bounces at ldraw.org [mailto:lsc-bounces at ldraw.org] On Behalf Of

> Tore Eriksson

> Sent: 13 May 2007 22:11

> To: LDraw Standards Committee

> Subject: Re: [LSC] Long filenames in the official library

> 

> I think it will cause some problems, but not insurmountable. As I, the

> most Conservative and stubborn no-to-all-changes voter, now approve to

> this change, I guess all resistance has been overcome.

> 

> /Tore

> 

> 

> 

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: "Lars C. Hassing" <lars at hassings.dk>

> To: "LDraw Standards Committee" <lsc at ldraw.org>

> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 12:41 AM

> Subject: Re: [LSC] Long filenames in the official library

> 

> 

> > I'm fine with long filenames.

> > /Lars

> >

> > Travis Cobbs skrev:

> > > I'm going to try to revive this discussion.  At this point, I'm

> > > personally in favor of allowing long filenames, as long as we strictly

> > > control the character set that's allowed in them (probably

> > > alphanumeric, plus underscore and dash, and maybe #).

> > >

> > > There's no sense spending the time coming up with a new policy if long

> > > filenames are going to be voted down completely, so I'd like everyone

> > > to vote yes or no on whether you're open to allowing long filenames.

> > > My vote is yes.  Note that this vote just determines if we continue on

> > > to draft an official spec for allowed filenames.  Until (if) we agree

> > > on that, nothing happens.

> > >

> > > --Travis

> > >

> > > On 4/4/07, *ldraw at holly-wood.it <mailto:ldraw at holly-wood.it>*

> > > <ldraw at holly-wood.it <mailto:ldraw at holly-wood.it> > wrote:

> > >

> > >     guys,

> > >

> > >     I just wanna make sure you bring this to a happy or sad

> > >     ending.

> > >

> > >     w.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >     ----- Original Message -----

> > >     Da : "Travis Cobbs" <tcobbs at gmail.com <mailto:tcobbs at gmail.com>>

> > >     A : "LDraw Standards Committee" < lsc at ldraw.org

> > >     <mailto:lsc at ldraw.org>>

> > >     Oggetto : Re: [LSC] Long filenames in the official library

> > >     Data : Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:59:54 -0700

> > >

> > >     > Kevin clarified that LPub/LSynth should only have problems

> > >     > with long filenames that contain spaces.  We definitely

> > >     > don't want to allow that in the library, so at this point

> > >     > I'd say that perhaps the best bet would be to somehow get

> > >     > an idea of which programs would have problems with long

> > >     > filenames.

> > >     >

> > >     > --Travis

> > >     >

> > >     > On 3/28/07, Travis Cobbs <tcobbs at gmail.com

> > >     <mailto:tcobbs at gmail.com>> wrote:

> > >     > >

> > >     > > Please read this thread on LUGNET if you have not

> > >     > already done so: >

> > >     > > http://news.lugnet.com/cad/?n=14492

> > >     > >

> > >     > > I think we should discuss whether or not to allow long

> > >     > > filenames in files in the official library.  At this

> > >     > > point in time, I'm personally leaning toward maintaining

> > >     > > the 8.3 limitation, based mostly on Kevin's comment that

> > >     > supporting long filenames would require updates to

> > >     > > LPub/LSynth.  Not so much that he has to update them,

> > >     > > but that his need to update them could very well

> > >     > indicate the same need in many other LDraw-compatible

> > >     > > programs. Frankly, I'm surprised that they would need to

> > >     > be updated. >

> > >     > > Unfortunately, I think that empirical testing of

> > >     > > existing programs is the only way we're going to be able

> > >     > > to have a good idea about current levels of support.  I

> > >     > for one don't relish doing those tests.  We can ask for

> > >     > > program authors to chime in with a yea or nay on LUGNET,

> > >     > > but I'll be surprised if get get a representative

> > >     > response. >

> > >     > > --Travis

> > >     > >

> > >     > >

> > >     >

> > >     >

> > >     > _______________________________________________

> > >     > LSC mailing list

> > >     > LSC at ldraw.org <mailto:LSC at ldraw.org>

> > >     > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

> > >     <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc>

> > >     >

> > >     _______________________________________________

> > >     LSC mailing list

> > >     LSC at ldraw.org <mailto:LSC at ldraw.org>

> > >     http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

> > >     <http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc>

> > >

> > >

> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> --

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > LSC mailing list

> > > LSC at ldraw.org

> > > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

> > >

> > _______________________________________________

> > LSC mailing list

> > LSC at ldraw.org

> > http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc

> _______________________________________________

> LSC mailing list

> LSC at ldraw.org

> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/lsc