W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: CRLF requirement

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 07:56:22 -0400
Cc: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <36E088AA-F7B8-4542-BDCB-D7DD70E798D0@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Jun 30, 2014, at 7:50 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 2014-06-30 13:40, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> On 2014-06-30 13:23, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> Assuming that the statement above is true: because there are some existing
>>> implementations that require CRLF and which would be broken by just sending
>>> CR or LF.
>> It seems for robustness you'd want to parse using newline (per initial
>> email), but require CRLF for transmission. (The tight coupling the
>> HTTP specification has with parsing and format has always seemed like
>> a bug.)
>> ...
> Do you have any evidence that accepting anything but CRLF is needed in practice? If yes, we'd probably want to add something to the prose about the message format.

In my experience, many servers and clients accept just "LF".  And for CUPS we always generate CR LF but accept both CR LF and LF alone.

Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

Received on Monday, 30 June 2014 11:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC