Subject: Re: [idn] Fw: Hello, This is KyungJae Park (KRNIC)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 12:51:39 -0700

We should allow more space for the names.  Even most of database
applications give default  80 letters to a name field.  I have tried 60 
letters in 1988, at time of space is a lot more expensive.  It has more 
trouble for me then, and I have not use it for less than 80 ever since.  
Internet is a much larger database, if we have a voice in this field 
length, we should expand it now rather than hear this again within 
a few years.

Liana

On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 06:33:36 -0700 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
writes:
> At 04:30 AM 7/6/2001, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> >the upper limit on length is not a fixed value, it depends on the 
> >character values used, even within a single script.
> >...
> >This will be fun to explain to customers...
> 
> That bit of complication sounds like a market opportunity for a new 
> technical skill:  finding appealing names that fit, especially when 
> needing 
> or wanting to squeeze in extra characters.
> 
> d/
> 
> ----------
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
> 
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 16:53:20 -0400

> applications give default  80 letters to a name field.

63 characters per label has been far more than enough for English.
If you are really trying to convince us that ideographic languages 
(which pack more information per characters) need *more* than 63 
characters per label, I think you're going to need to provide more 
justification.  Especially when the emperical evidence seems to 
indicate otherwise.

Keith