←back to thread

CRLF is obsolete and should be abolished

(fossil-scm.org)
422 points km | 2 comments | 13 Oct 24 19:16 UTC | HN request time: 0.404s | source
Show context
michaelmior ◴[13 Oct 24 20:03 UTC] 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 #
1. jcul ◴[14 Oct 24 08:26 UTC] No.41835444[source]▶
Not disagreeing with you, but implementation diverges from spec a lot anyway.

I've had to write decoders for things like HTTP, SMTP, SIP (VoIP), and there's so many edge cases and undocumented behavior from different implementations that you have to still support.

I find that it affects text based protocols, a lot more than binary protocols. Like TLS, or RTP, to stick with the examples above, have much less divergence and are much less forgiving to broken (according to spec) implementations.

replies(1): >>41836502 #
2. michaelmior ◴[14 Oct 24 11:29 UTC] No.41836502[source]▶
That's fair, but I don't see that as an argument for intentionally deviating from the spec.