Re: TEXTAREA line terminators revisited

Murray Maloney (murray@sco.COM)
Thu, 12 Jan 95 08:58:13 EST

I'm not sure that I understand this question fully
-- because if I do, then I can't see how we can
insist on CRLF.

So, are we saying that if I, as an information provider (server-side)
create a TEXTAREA which includes text in it with lines that
end with something other than CRLF, then my readers (client-side)
will not see my line endings?

If the answer is YES, then I have to object on behalf of anyone
who might be creating HTML documents in any environment where
CRLF is not the default line ending.

If, on the other hand, we are saying that when a reader (client-side)
fills in a form, the client must insert a standard line-ending
no matter what the default line ending is on that platform,
then this sounds like a great idea. I only wonder why would CRLF
be considered the best candidate? Wouldn't it be a lot easier
to deal with a single character as a line ending? What happens
when a reader on an X Window System machine uses the mouse to
cut and paste text into the TEXTAREA? Since the X Window buffer
contains LF's as line endings, is the application required to
interpret the LF's and prepend a CR for each one?

> I think that "(d) CRLF" is probably the best choice. I dont like the idea
> of " (e) any of (b),(c),(d) -- platform-dependent" since it moves a burden
> to the server to make an intelligent choice/guess at what it _may_ be (just
> how would LFCR be decoded??). While forcing it to be CRLF may make things a
> bit thougher for some client builders, its not an undo burden (esp. for
> Windows programmers). It could be said that (e) is more backwards compatible
> but you have to draw a line in the sand some time...
> Bruce
> ===============================================================================
> Bruce Kahn INet:
> Iris Associates Phone: 508.392.5335
> Standard disclaimers apply, even where prohibited by law..