3 ms·
There's a reasonable distinction between "term useful to understand historical documentation" and "term useful to use in new documentation/communication". No ne
by JoshTriplett 2y ago
There's a reasonable distinction between "term useful to understand historical documentation" and "term useful to use in new documentation/communication". No new system or protocol or piece of documentation should ever use non-8-bit bytes. If you're reading old protocol documentation, you get used to "octet" being used in place of "byte"; that doesn't mean new documentation should cater to systems that haven't existed for a long time.
(Also, this tangent really isn't worth spending time on.)
- pests 2y agoYet we seem to have all agreed to use octet, even for new documentation. I browsed the recent RFC submissions and had to stop looking as pretty much every one I checked that was posted this year uses octet. A few examples... https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9565.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9565.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9598.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9598.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9574.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9574.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9582.txt https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9582.txt So why try to force byte into this role? (agreed)