mIRC Home    About    Download    Register    News    Help

Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17244 28/03/03 05:55 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
B
bloupx Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
B
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
it'd be nice if it'd be possible to join room names longer than 90 chrs.
why is it limited there?

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17245 28/03/03 07:10 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
KingTomato Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,012
Why do u need a channel name thats that long? confused


-KingTomato
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17246 28/03/03 07:49 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Well there's got to be a limit somewhere, if 90 character channels were allowed then what's to stop someone coming along and complaining that 10,000 character long channel names aren't allowed? 90 characters is WAY beyond a practical limit.

Nobody would ever type in such a long channel name, and it would be impractical in most displays even to click on. Why on earth would you subject people to that? It's not like you can say that all channel names below 90 characters are gone - if only 10 characters were allowed using english alphanumeric there would still be 3,656,158,440,062,975 possible channel names. Granted, most wouldn't make sense but if given the choice between #zfhjjhzjhd and #hello_there_this_is_my_very_long_channel_name_which_is_readable_and_makes_sense_do_you_like_it I'd take the short non-sensical one every time.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17247 28/03/03 08:29 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
B
bloupx Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
B
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
since there are networks around who support longer channelnames than 90 , it'd be practical , correct.

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17248 28/03/03 08:31 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,138
C
Collective Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,138
In RFC1459 it says:
"Channels names are strings (beginning with a '&' or '#' character) of length up to 200 characters. Apart from the the requirement that the first character being either '&' or '#'; the only restriction on a channel name is that it may not contain any spaces (' '), a control G (^G or ASCII 7), or a comma (',' which is used as a list item separator by the protocol)."

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17249 28/03/03 11:50 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
You could well switch that around and go ask the server admins why they support such ridiculously long channel names.

Collective: If we're gonna follow an outdated RFC like 1459 then shouldn't we also be asking why mIRC allows nicknames longer than 9 characters, why very few (if any) servers follow those channel naming/prefixing rules, and why most servers allow more than 3 modes to be set per line. In other words, RFC1459 is old and much of it has been superceded by newer RFC's or by adopted standards throughout the IRC community.

Can anyone honestly answer me why they feel such long channel names are necessary?


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17250 29/03/03 12:09 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,138
C
Collective Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,138
There's a difference. When servers started allowing nicks longer than 9 characters they made things less restrictive, but not following it in this case is making it more restrictive. Perhaps a friend using another client has a long channel name for some reason, why should I be prevented from joining it just because I'm using mIRC? Answer - I shouldn't.

What makes you so against having mIRC capable of using all the functions of the IRC servers it can connect to? Perhaps it's not the most important thing in the world, but there is no reason to be against it.

IMO the fact that that RFC is so old (the first RFC on IRC) means that it should be supported as a minimum, adding improvements as you go, not pointless restrictions.

Of course you could argue that the newer RFC2812 says that channels should be a maximum of 50 characters long, I presume you will be in favour of that now?

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17251 29/03/03 01:41 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
I'm not just against mIRC supporting this, I'm against it's usage on IRC as a whole. Of course whether mIRC supports it is a very significant indication as to whether it will remain in IRC (albeit on only a few servers) for another 5 years until the subject comes up again or whether it dies out much sooner. My reason for being against it is that it's needless, totally a case of freedom for the sake of freedom, no common sense in it whatsoever. As I have already said a channel name that long makes it much 'harder' to access and yet no-one has given an example what advantages using long names gives. If someone could simply suggest why such long names are necessary or preferable I could very well change that opinion - but no-one has. From that I can only conclude that there isn't one. The 'restriction' this places on IRC is virtually non-existent, does any channel anywhere use more than 90 characters in it's name? (Cue half a dozen people registering 100-character channels).

From a mIRC point-of-view also consider that a 200 character channel name would immediately take up more than a fifth of mIRC's maximum line length.

And yes, a maximum channel length of 50 sounds much more reasonable.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17252 29/03/03 02:40 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,138
C
Collective Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
C
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,138
I don't see why there is a block at all. If someone wants a channel with a long name for some reason why should mIRC stop them? Presumably the person who posted this topic and whoever posted the other one (somewhere on Bug Reports I think) have/had reasons to try it. Perhaps if long channel names caused technical problems I would understand, but for now blocking channels at all seems a pointless exercise...

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17253 29/03/03 09:25 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
B
bloupx Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
B
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
like Collective said , if IRC servers allow room names up to 200 chars in length why am i being stopped joining them them because i use mIRC?
whether it makes sense to create such a long chatroom isn't point of discussion here.

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17254 29/03/03 09:39 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
Watchdog Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,985
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Why not 50? Joining a room with a name like #ThisIsARoomWithAReallyLongNameBecauseILikeLongNamesAndItShouldBeIncludedInmIRCRegardlessOfWhetherPeopleCareForItOrNot is a bit silly if nothing else. As for the nickname issue most servers support lick lengths of around 30 chars or so these days, that is also a reasonable limit.

If mIRC did come to support 200 characters then someone would come along and demand it go even higher, again it seems pointless to me. I'd prefer development efforts to be put into something more useful.

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17255 29/03/03 10:01 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
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.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17256 30/03/03 08:45 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7
S
Sabresite Offline
Nutrimatic drinks dispenser
Offline
Nutrimatic drinks dispenser
S
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7
Why not allow the line length to be specified in options (if possible). Secondly, yes, it would make a problem, but thats the consequence of having such a stupidly named channel.

Also IRC servers should tell their clients the channel character limit. And if they/when they do, mIRC should conform itself to that limit.

That should solve the problem, and make everyone happy.

Last edited by Sabresite; 30/03/03 08:49 PM.

Nothing is random.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17257 01/04/03 08:31 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
B
bloupx Offline OP
Vogon poet
OP Offline
Vogon poet
B
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 124
starbucks:
"immedietaly supported by mIRC" , that is why it's posted here in feature suggestions.
you're still going on about what makes sense and what doesnt , that's a matter of taste and doesnt need discussing as it will lead nowhere.

Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17258 01/04/03 10:03 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
Yes, servers probably should return that info in raw 005 or similar, but nonetheless there will (and should) always be a limit as to how high that number can go. Whether that limit would still be 90 in that situation I don't know, but I'm sure there would still be one. For instance NICKLEN already exists for the length of nicknames, but if a server returns NICKLEN=260 I can say with reasonable certainty that mIRC won't accept that. Actually I haven't tested that theory at all, I'm way too lazy to setup a server to test it, but it would be surprising as hell to me if mIRC allowed it.

bloupx: It's not just a matter of taste though, it's a matter of practicality. It's not practical for mIRC with it's current line length limitations to support very large channel names and it's not practical for any user wanting to join that channel to do so.


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17259 03/04/03 07:47 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 196
T
trenzterra Offline
Vogon poet
Offline
Vogon poet
T
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 196
So if an IRC server specifies the limit as 1,000,000 as it doesn't mind the length of the channels, does it mean mIRC have to change the limit to 1 million?

And actually mIRC should match the same length as the maximum limit on the IRC server. Heh.


trenzterra
AustNet #trenzterra and #w
Head Scripter @ http://trenzterra.uni.cc
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17260 03/04/03 09:17 AM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 44
P
ppslim Offline
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
P
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 44
No, mIRC should match the limit of the RFC.

While RFC are not legal, and can be broken, it is usualy the IRC servers that break them.

Why should clients have to work around what the server break. If the servers want people, they should change it to the RFC defined limits.


Suck it, lick it, milk it then put it away.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17261 03/04/03 09:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
_
_D3m0n_ Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
_
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,527
i would never in a million years join a channel with that long of a name ... its complete and utter wast to even have it that long ..... so what if it calls for it in the RFC in the winter the speedlimits on the highways are still 70 whether there is no snow or a foot of snow on the road ... does that mean at all costs be stupid and go 70?? same reason id assume mirc has a lower limit ..... its just not useful to have anything that freaking long


D3m0nnet.com
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17262 03/04/03 10:10 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 44
P
ppslim Offline
Ameglian cow
Offline
Ameglian cow
P
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 44
I would agree with your anology, however, ti can be turned around.

What if you have a car that can only do 40, when the limit is 70.

You would say "get another car". However, it's the same as saying "get another client", which, as we all know, people want to avoid.

I myself hate the idea of channel names that long, they are pathetic, memory wasting (server side, but just the client) and childish. But that is no excuse to not support them.

Yes, mIRC should have a limit, just the way the RFC states there is one.


Suck it, lick it, milk it then put it away.
Re: ability to join rooms longer than 90 chars. #17263 03/04/03 10:16 PM
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
S
starbucks_mafia Offline
Hoopy frood
Offline
Hoopy frood
S
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,962
But then it depends what RFC you follow... RFC-1459 says a limit of 200, RFC-2812 says 50. RFC-2812 is newer and quite frankly more practical. Then again very few IRC servers or clients follow any RFC in all areas, why should channel limits be followed so adamantly?


Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
Page 1 of 2 1 2