On Sunday 31 July 2016 00:15:57 Donald Stufft wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2016, at 4:40 PM, Aymeric Augustin > > <aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > > > > I have trouble believing that a significant number of people are used to > > typing 100+ characters when inputting their name into a website — let > > alone that a significant number of people have a last name that contains > > more than 100 characters and that isn’t a joke. How would it fit on a > > passport? > > See #6 of > https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about- > names/ >
See #11 of this list. If we were to take it seriously, any name field should have an accompanying charset field. Or, actually, some substring-to-charset mapping, because of #10. Which makes one just go straight to #36. It isn't really a workable set of constraints. However, since you brought it up, and since it mentions names from the Klingon Empire, I would like to remind the supporters of MySQL-driven limits that for encodings which can express the full range of Unicode, including Klingon and Emoji, the MySQL limit is 191 and not 255. Just sayin'. Shai.
