Dnia 25-06-2007, pon o godzinie 09:52 -0600, Peter Saint-Andre napisał(a): > If we say that the length SHOULD NOT be more than XXXX characters
I would rather phrase it, that the client MAY NOT expect server to handle names longer than XXXX characters. If the server could handle and client knows it could handle, it could use longer names. > It's not like this is completely subjective. Mostly I was thinking about > database storage of rosters. It would be helpful for server developers > to know that roster item handles and roster group names won't need to be > more than XXXX characters / octets / bytes long. This is not how modern databases work. Handling of variable length strings and fixed length strings works equally well. Actually it would be a pure waste of space to pre-allocate fixed string of 1023 characters to store 5. This is the server implementation detail. If server could handle it, why discourage it? And if server cannot (or does not want, by config option) to handle it, it should communicate it with well-defined error. > If it's a SHOULD then you have flexibility. "640KB SHOULD be enough for anyone." -- Tomasz Sterna Xiaoka Grp. http://www.xiaoka.com/
