I want to chip in my two cents here.
I don't care if the upper limit is 100, 254 or 2 zillion.
The most common abbreviations are versions of "with/without", "pattern", and different colour names.
I think we need to agree on how to shorten names of colors. I dont want to see description with "Very_Light_Bluish_Gray and Speckle_Dark_Bluish_Gray_Silver Pattern" in them.
To me, a no limit policy, must mean that we no longer need unnecessary abbreviations, only clearer descriptions.
I think we need a statement that clearly state how words like the above should be written and be used.
Something like this:
"Pattern" must be added to all patterned parts.
"with" or "without" should not be shortened, but "w." or "w/o" is allowed. No other versions.
The description should IMO be kept below 64 characters, but an author is allowed to add more if, and only if, it is really necessary. It just need to make sense.
I don't care if the upper limit is 100, 254 or 2 zillion.
The most common abbreviations are versions of "with/without", "pattern", and different colour names.
I think we need to agree on how to shorten names of colors. I dont want to see description with "Very_Light_Bluish_Gray and Speckle_Dark_Bluish_Gray_Silver Pattern" in them.
To me, a no limit policy, must mean that we no longer need unnecessary abbreviations, only clearer descriptions.
I think we need a statement that clearly state how words like the above should be written and be used.
Something like this:
"Pattern" must be added to all patterned parts.
"with" or "without" should not be shortened, but "w." or "w/o" is allowed. No other versions.
The description should IMO be kept below 64 characters, but an author is allowed to add more if, and only if, it is really necessary. It just need to make sense.