Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.infosystems.gopher > #735
| From | Stone Fox <stone@unix.dog> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.infosystems.gopher |
| Subject | Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. |
| Date | 2025-02-26 21:29 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <slrnvrv1rf.2rk.stone@io.local> (permalink) |
| References | <vpl3rj$24spt$1@dont-email.me> |
I think the developer is assmuming that if its over 67 characters, its over 69 characters. I'd keep it at 69 characters, and point to the developers ignorance as cause of truncation. On 2025-02-25, IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Fellow gophers, > > I recently discovered that UMN Gopher client has some rather odd > behaviour when deciding if it should truncate menu titles. > > The RFC suggests they should be kept below 70 characters. I have always > addhered to this and used 69 but I received a report, after adding the > date to the end of some lines, that my titles were now being truncated > when viewed on an 80 character display. > > This didn't add up, quite literally, so I did a little investigation of > the source code. It seems 13 characters are reserved for the left info > margin. The margin can be less depending on the index number of the menu > item, this is a problem in itself. But following its calculation logic, > you have COLS - 13 resulting in the maxwidth. 80 - 13 = 67, so even > though my lines are addhering to the RFC, the client thinks they are too > long. > > The irony is that truncated lines have the last two characters replaced > with '..'. Which actually overwrites the last two digits of the date. If > the accounting was correct, then it would remain untouched... > > I wrote a phlog post about it here with more detail: > gopher://gopher.icu/0/phlog/Computing/Display-lines-and-UMN-gopher.md > > In the meantime I shortened my menu titles to 67 characters to stop the > phantom truncation. But as per the phlog post, I'm wondering what to do > about it... > > Any helpful suggestions or guidance greatfully received. >
Back to comp.infosystems.gopher | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-02-25 18:57 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. Stone Fox <stone@unix.dog> - 2025-02-26 21:29 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. Lawrence Woodman <lorrywoodman@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 09:03 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. Lawrence Woodman <lorrywoodman@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 09:35 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. Stone Fox <stone@unix.dog> - 2025-02-28 22:21 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-03-01 20:30 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. "Arti F. Idiot" <addr@is.invalid> - 2025-03-01 20:42 -0700
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-03-02 15:59 +1000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-03-02 10:58 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. jeojet@not.valid - 2025-03-02 16:13 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-03-02 18:36 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. morena <morena@morena.rip> - 2025-03-03 20:39 +0100
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-03-03 21:00 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. morena <morena@morena.rip> - 2025-03-03 23:42 +0100
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:04 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. Stone Fox <stone@unix.dog> - 2025-03-02 21:34 +0000
Re: UMN Gopher - menu title length. IanJ <SPAMian_jones_01@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> - 2025-03-03 23:23 +0000
csiph-web