200 character channel name limit

[Rachel Llorenna]

While I fully understand that we would want to follow traditions and
RFC specifications as much as possible, I'm not sure it's terribly
useful to have such a high limit, when few people actually
legitimately use channels of that length. It certainly makes making a
MySQL table that much more difficult, since it has to be a (huge)
VARCHAR column.

It only has its minor bit of geek appeal and nothing more; I'm sure
even Wohali wouldn't be using that channel for normal
conversation/etc, although I do not know that for a fact. After all,
would it not effectively reduce the length of messages, as per the 512
character limit imposed by RFC 1459?

It's as scary and useless as having excessively long (30 characters?!
*pokes Unreal IRCd/Bahamut*) nicknames, though I suppose it doesn't
affect ircd developers.


On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 16:37:18 -0500, Joan Sarah Touzet <joant at ieee.org> wrote:
> Hi Rachel,
> 
> I think the answer is "tradition."  There's no specifically good reason,
> and if you prefer a different limit on your network, then go for it.
> 
> EFNet presently has a 200 character limit; do a /whois Wohali to see a
> channel that makes use of all 200 characters.
> 
> -Joan
> 
> Thus spake Rachel Llorenna (rachies at gmail.com):
> > Why exactly did the developers feel it necessary to set the channel
> > name length limit to 200 characters, when realistically, few people
> > exceed 20 characters for channel names (and that's being generous)?
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Rachel Llorenna (frequency)
> 


-- 
Regards,

Rachel Llorenna (frequency)