- From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@neon.mcom.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:54:48 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
- Cc: cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu, mvanheyn@cs.indiana.edu, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Chuck Shotton writes: > > > IMHO, it should state that CR, LF, and CRLF should all be interpreted > > equally as EOL when used as line ends. This avoids any problems with > > machine dependent EOL symbols, and fairly represents the current practice. > > (It also avoids forcing clients and especially servers to do line-by-line > > translations of EOL for all outgoing response information, which is a BIG > > performance hit.) > > Sounds reasonable to me. I object. So far, CRLF and LF have been understood as linebreaks. In other words, LF is a linebreak, with possibly a preceding CR. This is fine, even when used intermixed. If we change this in the proposed fashion, you will have ambiguity if these are inconsistently used; imagine a situation when you have a file that begins with LF: ...CRLF Blaa: foobarCR CR LF This won't be ambiguous if you force the use of CRs and LFs to be consistent, but I think it's better to allow LFs and CRLFs intermixed, rather than allow CRs, LFs and CRLFs, but only one of them at a time. -- Cheers, Ari --
Received on Thursday, 1 December 1994 18:55:24 UTC