CRLF requirements (was Re: Text format proposal)

solderpunk solderpunk at SDF.ORG
Sun Sep 8 15:42:08 BST 2019

> IMO, it makes sense to require CRLF in the plain text parts of the
> protocol (after requests, after the status line of a response), but I
> don't think that the text/gemini file format needs to have CR/LF; IMO
> clients should be prepared to accept either LF or CR/LF just as they
> would with text/plain. And maybe if we're serious about supporting old
> devices, clients should be prepared for bare CR, too (Classic MacOS).
> But it's a pain in the arse to authors to have to save text documents
> with non-native line endings, and I don't feel like servers need to be
> in the business of reformatting the content they serve.

I will admit that the current liberal use of CRLF throughout the Gemini
spec is the result of me blindly copying from Gopher and other RFCs (as
Sean mentioned, it's ubiquitous).  My initial response to what you wrote
above is that it makes an awful lot of sense.  And, in fact, is probably
a lot closer to what extant clients are actually doing.

Does anybody want to make a strong counterargument, that CRLF should be
strictly required in text/gemini?  If not I'll update the spec-spec.


More information about the Gemini mailing list