RE: naming conventions for images

Subject: RE: naming conventions for images
From: Mike Stockman <stockman -at- jagunet -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:57:15 -0400

At 01:05 PM 7/11/2000 -0700, Jeff Hanvey wrote:

> We don't worry about length,

Disagree. The file names should be as short as
possible. If they're ever used on a Unix machine, for
example, they are limited to the 8.3 convention. Also,
if they ever go on line, spaces are not permitted
either.

Among current operating systems, the shortest limit on file names is 31 characters, which is an archaic limitation left-over on the Mac OS. All other current OSes that I'm familiar with, including all current Windows releases and all UNIXes I've worked with, handle file names up to 255 characters. Windows and the Mac OS handle spaces just fine, and even with some UNIXes you can use spaces, as long as you're willing to forever after refer to the name in quotation marks.

Of course, you should avoid spaces if you're planning on going online with the graphics.

Given *at least* 31 characters and potentially 255, I don't see why you'd hobble yourself with 8.3 names that are guaranteed to be meaningless without a separate "name conversion" chart. (Let's see, "27" means it's the Installation manual, and "04" is the chapter number, and "Ops" means the operations module...)

"Conventions" for graphic naming mean nothing if they inhibit meaning and productivity. Consistency, however, is a Good Thing (tm) and should be applied to all graphics naming conventions.

Hope this helps,
----->Mike





Previous by Author: Re: Printing from Word using DocuTech systems
Next by Author: re: Re: Summary: Are Redirects Annoying? RANT
Previous by Thread: RE: naming conventions for images
Next by Thread: RE: naming conventions for images


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads