Well there always has to be a limit somewhere, that's just the nature of computing. Most likely the limit wasn't found from someone unable to get on their 91-character channel, it was from just seeing how far mIRC could be pushed in that area.The technical problem for mIRC is the one I already stated: 200 characters is more than a fifth of mIRC's maximum line length, meaning that for scripters to be sure they don't get 'line too long' errors they could only ever display messages longer than about 720 characters when relating to channels.
bloupx: Well I'll raise a question from my first post again: if 200 character channels are supported because IRCds have it what happens if/when someone comes along with their 1000 character channel support and says 'well my IRCd supports it, so should mIRC'. At what point does Khaled have to just say 'this is ridiculous' and stop running around to every beck and call of IRCds? I'm not 100% dead set against the idea of longer channel name support, I just don't see the reasoning that everything supported anywhere on IRC should immediately be supported by mIRC. I realise this isn't exactly the same since this isn't a new feature dreamed up by IRCd developers, it's actually a very old 'feature' dreamed up by the creator of IRC which has since been replaced and it seems some IRCd developers just didn't get the memo. Which pretty much amounts to the same thing.
