←back to thread

422 points km | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.256s | source
Show context
michaelmior ◴[] No.41831072[source]
> various protocols (HTTP, SMTP, CSV) still "require" CRLF at the end of each line

What would be the benefit to updating legacy protocols to just use NL? You save a handful of bits at the expense of a lot of potential bugs. HTTP/1(.1) is mostly replaced by HTTP/2 and later by now anyway.

Sure, it makes sense not to require CRLF with any new protocols, but it doesn't seem worth updating legacy things.

> Even if an established protocol (HTTP, SMTP, CSV, FTP) technically requires CRLF as a line ending, do not comply.

I'm hoping this is satire. Why intentionally introduce potential bugs for the sake of making a point?

replies(13): >>41831206 #>>41831210 #>>41831225 #>>41831256 #>>41831322 #>>41831364 #>>41831391 #>>41831706 #>>41832337 #>>41832719 #>>41832751 #>>41834474 #>>41835444 #
Ekaros ◴[] No.41831256[source]
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.

replies(4): >>41831290 #>>41831369 #>>41831390 #>>41831465 #
1. ◴[] No.41831465[source]