gabriel rosenkoetter [2001-11-20 21.09 -0500]:
>On Tue, Nov 20, 2001 at 06:31:51PM +0100, Martin.Leidig@ePost.de wrote:
> > What about the afaik Mac-typical shortening amidst the file name?. Thus,
> > you'd get from the above something like that:
> > 
> > Document Discus...rs Part 1 of 114
> > Document Discus...rs Part 2 of 114
> > Document Discus...rs Part 3 of 114
>
>That's an interesting idea,

It's the way Anarchy/Interarchy (Mac ftp client and more) handles that.

>but who's to say the original filenames
>aren't something like this:
>
>Document Discussion 001-20011122 Thursday
>Document Discussion 002-20011122 Thursday
>...
>(or similar)
>
>Won't your scheme then collide? (You can't just assume that everyone
>differentiates file names at the end...)

Not necessarily; one could outline some scheme to look first _where_ similar
file names are differing, and the try to omit equal parts first.  I guess
that that might slow down traffic a lot in some cases and not necessarily
give really human-readable results.

Also, one could add sort of Windows "NAME~1" mechanism, _if_ (and only if)
the scheme above would produce identical names.  Better than nothing.

>As I said, though, fixing this problem right is considerably less
>trivial than just making some noise about it. But, hey, if someone's
>got time, go for it.

Well, I'm good in inventing schemes, but implementing them is another
thing ...  ;-)

>Oh, and is that meant to be three separate periods (wasting three
>characters!) or the single, Mac OS-specific elipsis character
>(option-;)?

Exactly that.

>The latter would be cool (and allow more of the original
>name through), but I'm not sure I know how to make Netatalk spit it
>out

Perhaps some new functionality is needed for this.

>(or grok it on an incoming file, for that matter).

I'm not sure if incoming files should be renamed at all; if someone wants
that at all, it should be considered if incoming triple period signs should
be changed to three periods, or some other sign, or if the whole file name
should be exchanged with that on in the incoming file's comment (if any).

>This is all getting pretty far away from port-mac68k. Interested
>parties should perhaps subscribe to whatever Netatalk mailing lists
>exist and take part there.

Yeah.  Could you please lend me some time?  An additional day or two every
week should do ...  ;-)

> > Yes.  Also, Netatalk could put the long filenames into the files' finder
> > comments, as some Mac ftp clients do it with URLs of downloaded files.
>
>That's a good idea (provided Netatalk has a good way of getting at
>those; they live in the resource fork, no?

Yes.

>Is it safe to edit AppleDouble-preserved resource forks on the fly?),

Hmmm ...

>but it doesn't solve the problem of what to call them temporarily...

That's right (again ;-), but see above.


-Moss-
-- 
-eof-