Re: RE. Naming conventions for images?

[Mike Stockman <stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com>]

On 7/18/00 3:21 PM, Hart, Geoff (Geoff-H -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA) wrote:

>First, restrict names to 8.3 format (eight characters before the decimal and
>three after). HTML files would thus have the suffix ".htm" rather than
>".html". This means the file should work fine on any system, even <shudder>
>MS-DOS.

I'll weigh in on this discussion again, mainly because I have a 
deep-seated hatred for 8.3 file names. Fortunately for me, they're almost 
*never* necessary.

The ISO9660 CD-ROM format (which keeps coming up as the reason for the 
8.3 requirement) supports only hideously short file names. A long, long 
time ago (early 1990s), UNIX-variants such as SunOS/Solaris started 
supporting the Rock Ridge Extensions, which used some unnecessary fields 
from the ISO9660 format to carry additional information about UNIX file 
permissions, UNIX-style file names, and other neat stuff. That brought 
the file name limit for UNIX systems that had the Rock Ridge Extensions 
installed to 255 characters, give or take.

Later (well after Win95 shipped, I'm annoyed to say), Microsoft came out 
with the Joliet CD-ROM format that supported long file names in Windows 
CD-ROMs. The UNIX world was quick to jump on that, and now the Joliet 
format is supported by many Linuxes, UNIXes, etc.

I suggest that before naming in a format that is sure to cause you pain 
down the road, check the audience for your files, and if they don't all 
have modern enough operating systems (UNIX included) to support longer 
file names, see if you can't get them to upgrade... in this day and age, 
however, the odds are that they do.

Hope this helps,
----->Mike