W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 1994

Re: Comments on the HTTP/1.0 draft.

From: Ari Luotonen <luotonen@neon.mcom.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 18:54:48 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <9412020254.AA03701@neon.mcom.com>
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:

Blaa: foobarCR

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:54 UTC