[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug ?

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:18:01AM +1000, Peter Zelezny wrote:
> Before long, numeric 005 will get so long, it'll
> go over the 512 byte limit.

This should not be an issue; one can merely send multiple 005
numerics. Afaict xchat and a couple other clients I've looked at would
happily handle this correctly.

> P.S. The "~" character isn't allowed in nicknames anyway.

Yeah, but "^" usually is (this is broken), so ~s can slip through to
the client in some cases. There's probably a way to achieve what we
want anyway, but this was just what caused us to look into it; C
locale behaviour seems more intuitive, and dalnet seem to get away
with it (if they drop it OPN will probably follow suit; since they
probably won't, an alternative solution must be sought).

On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:41:22AM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> Who says they have to keep the 512 byte limit? People don't generally
> IRC from 300 baud modems these days. Anyway, if they're designing a new
> protocol, shouldn't the protocol be _new_? Perhaps it could be a
> thoroughly compact binary protocol, for instance.

That's actually on the list, although the conventional one will still
work - but ascii text orientation still has it's advantages, as does
namespace compatibility with rfc1459, it's just the
/[^\r\n\0]{0,510}\r\n/ that really has to go.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK

PGP signature