Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: enag@ifi.uio.no (Erik Naggum)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400
Subject: Re: CRLF
Message-ID: <ENAG.91Jan23234930@hild.ifi.uio.no>
Date: 24 Jan 91 03:46:14 GMT
References: <10469*kenw@noah.arc.ab.ca>
Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway
Lines: 20
Approved: usenet@ICS.UCI.EDU
In-Reply-To: kenw@noah.arc.ab.ca's message of 23 Jan 91 05:40:01 GMT
x-attn: jns
ReSent-From: Jerry Sweet <mhsnews-request@ICS.UCI.EDU>
ReSent-To: mhsnews@ICS.UCI.EDU

In article <10469*kenw@noah.arc.ab.ca>, Ken Wallewein writes:

   > But as far as the to-be-defined external body parts, I'd recommend
   >allowing lines to be delimited by either LF or CRLF.

     Better allow bare CRs, too; that's what Macintoshes use.  And LF<NUL>CRs
   and similar combinations, probably; I've seen them used elsewhere.

     In an 'pure ASCII' environment, any number of CRs and NULs, so long as
   adjacent to a single LF, appear to be the same thing, and should be
   probably considered a single line terminator.

   /kenw

Arguments like this one is the reason that CRLF is the Right Thing.

--
[Erik Naggum]	Snail: Naggum Software / BOX 1570 VIKA / 0118 OSLO / NORWAY
		Mail: <erik@naggum.uu.no>, <enag@ifi.uio.no>
My opinions.	Wail: +47-2-836-863	Another int'l standards dude.