Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!jarthur!ucivax!gateway
From: pv@eng.sun.COM (Peter Vanderbilt)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re:  CRLF
Message-ID: <9101222001.AA17316@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 22 Jan 91 20:12:39 GMT
Lines: 34
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU

>  In article <9101150218.AA10632@polya.Eng.Sun.COM>, pv@eng.sun.COM (Peter
>  Vanderbilt) writes (as an example of what not to do):
>
>  |>
>  |>     Requiring the use of one of CRLF or LF as line delimiters (rather
>  |>     than allowing both).
>  |>
>  Just to be sure that nobody will think that both are allowed now:
>
>  I fought a digging-through-the-standards action last week, and the
>  standard referenced by X.400 (IA5) plainly states that the LF alone
>  "moves the printing position to the same position on the next line".
>  It has been unchanged at least since 1980. [...]

Harald (Alvestrand) is correct about this as far as the IA5 body part
is concerned -- CRLFs are the right thing to use.

But as far as the to-be-defined external body parts, I'd recommend
allowing lines to be delimited by either LF or CRLF.  The reason for
this is to allow the mail system to move application data transparently
from user to user, in particular between a user on an operating system
that uses LF and a user on one that uses CRLF.

If the mail system is required to muck with the data, it will
complicate implementations and configuration, and thus slow deployment
of 88 X.400.

It does mean that applications need to be tolerant of the other line
delimiting form.  Are there standard applications (spreadsheets, etc.)
for which this would be a problem?  I've heard that most applications
are already tolerant because of file sharing between dissimilar OSs.
Is this correct?

Pete