3 ms·
Thinking about it. Using CR alone in protocols actually make infinitely more sense. As that would allow use of LF in records. Which would make many use cases mu
by Ekaros 2y ago
Thinking about it. Using CR alone in protocols actually make infinitely more sense. As that would allow use of LF in records. Which would make many use cases much simpler.
Just think about text protocols like HTTP, how much easier something like cookies would be to parse if you had CR as terminating character. And then each record separated by LF.
- gpvos 2y agoThat is so backwards incompatible that it is never, ever going to fly.
- mattmerr 2y agoASCII already has designated bytes for unit, group, and record separators. That aside, a big drawback of using unprintable bytes like these is they're more difficult for humans to read in dumps or type on a keyboard than a newline (provided newline has a strict definition CRLF, LF, etc)
- fijiaarone 2y agoThere is no reason those ascii characters need to stay unprintable. You could use other characters like an interpunct, silcrow, or down carat.
- eqvinox 2y agoThere is in fact a reason those ASCII 'characters' should stay unprintable: the 0x00-0x1f (except Tab, CR, LF) range is explicitly excluded as invalid in a whole bunch of standards, e.g. XML.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]