Posted by dorayme on 09/30/06 23:03

In article <dbyTg.23376$h02.3519@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> Scripsit patrick j:
>
> > I'm wondering if there is a limit on the number of characters in a
> > filename for use in a web-site?
>
> On the web, there are URLs, not files. If URLs happen to map to filenames in
> a particular server, that's coincidental.
>
> There have been reports on browser limitations with URLs longer than 2,000
> characters. If they are an issue to you, then you (or your users) surely
> have serious issues.
>
> > However now I'm using OS X I have found myself creating quite long
> > filenames.
> >
> > Should I be concerned about this?
>
> Yes, definitely. What makes you create quite long filenames? They won't make
> your site more useable, will they? Did you ever try writing down even a 200
> characters long messy URL in order to be able to visit later, after you
> found something interesting when using a foreign computer?

Your point about urls is good but this is a different issue to at
least one particular one in the question: apart from url length
limits, apart from user difficulties, what are the limits on file
names themselves? To do with particular server set ups? I have
wondered this myself. Never a problem in fact because I try to
keep the names short. But it is a bit of a temptation for Mac OS
X users (perhaps others too) and can conceivably be useful for
private file management. The question of typing urls need not
actually arise, this is a different issue.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]