John Cowan:
> There's no reason to support LF CR. I'd think the most likely way for
> it to get generated is that someone writes a LF as end of line, and then
> someone else erroneously appends a blank line terminated by CR+LF to
> that, producing LF CR LF. So treat LF CR (with or without a following
> LF) as two separate lines.
Okay, LF CR dropped.
It doesn't cost anything to support just-CR lines, so I plan to keep that.
Although it's unlikely that new files would be written with it as a line
terminator, it's certainly a convention that has been historically common, and
it's trivial to support. It'd be a pain to interactively use a buggy guile
systems on a CR-only system (if any are still running), but that's probably the
least of your problems on such systems :-). ("Fix the bug" might be a
reasonable rejoinder.)
> > I plan to also support IBM NEL.
>
> After pushing the NEL, CR NEL, and LS line terminators into XML 1.1,
> I've concluded that it was simply a mistake.
Okay. Dropping NEL would eliminate some potential locale issues, and I've
never seen NEL-terminated files in the wild.
Supporting LF and CRLF is enough in practice; supporting CR-only is a nice
no-cost bonus.
> ("N possible line terminators? Let's define our own. Oops, now we have
> N+1 line terminators.")
Sigh, yet another example of:
http://xkcd.com/927/
--- David A. Wheeler
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
