At 09:59 AM 2/27/2005 -0500, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net wrote:
The 32K limit gets an unjustified amount of attention
because a warning is
displayed automatically. The wording of that warning ought to be toned way
down. This is just one of many issues involved in browser compatibility,
and not the most important one.
My own personal bugaboo with regards to the "we _must_ split this article
because it's so long" is the articles that wind up with (part 1 of 4),
(part 2 of 4), (part 3 of 4), etc. in their titles. If an article's to be
split then IMO it should be split solely along content lines so that the
resulting articles can be named reflecting what's actually covered by them,
not given arbitrary names like this.
Anyone know if there's a naming convention about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naming_conventions#Do_not_use_an_article_name_…
looks like it could apply.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005