On 2/22/2013 1:36 AM, unruh wrote:
On 2013-02-22, Brian Utterback <brian.utterb...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote:
Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than
that.
Another reason to refer to the RFC I quoted, which dates back to the 90's.
So, it would appear that is the poster uses format=flowed test, then
your reader should handle it. But if someone is using just text/plain,
then they should break the lines at a reasonable place.
No. If the person wants his post to be easily readable by as many people
as possible, he breaks his lines. If he does not care if people read his
posts, or wants to make a point about line lengths, then he can do whatever he
wants.
Yes, but as we have seen from the RFC, the sender's software should take
care of that on sending (if using flowed) and the reader's software
should take care of it on reading, even if the sender has not (again if
using flowed). The point is that if you are using flowed format,
inserting CR at the end of each line defeats the purpose. Software that
mixes these modes makes it difficult for everyone. For instance, input
text fields in HTML forms often wrap the lines on input when you reach
the margin of the field, but do not insert an actual CR, so that when
the entered text is viewed on a resulting HTML page, it might end up as
one long line. Inserting CR's at the end of the line on input each time
the words wrap is a huge pain since you can't tell if it was your CR or
the auto-wrap that caused the linefeed, and doesn't help if the input
field is of a different width from the output field anyway.
All of the above was entered with no CRs except the one at the end that
signaled a new paragraph. You probably see this okay because my mailer
will follow the RFC I quoted and limit the line lengths anyway. But that
is a "should", not a "must". Even if it did not, anyone viewing it with
a conformant reader would still see it as multiple lines. However, if I
were to insert the CRs at each line as you suggest then it would no
longer look right for those using conformant readers.
Of course, that only applies if the format is "flowed". If it is
text/plain without that format, then the CRs are necessary, with the
disadvantages noted in the RFC. That's why they created "flowed" in the
first place. But making this a little more tricky, it isn't like I chose
"flowed" anywhere, my software did it without my knowledge. And in the
end, that is kind of what we expect from our software, to "do the right
thing".
Brian.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
