Re: NULL

[John Gardiner Myers <jgm+@xxxxxxx>]

Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp> writes:
> Do you think these transport, in the future, should support true
> binary?

I don't care.  If someone feels the need to support true binary, they
have the mechanisms to do so.

> Or, do you think we should avoid using NULL even with binary just
> because there are widespread use of NUL-terminated strings?

No, supporting binary is harder than supporting 7bit or 8bit.  That is
the purpose of having a distinction between "8bit" and "binary"--the
former is an assertion about the content which permits simplification
in handling.

> If you drop NULL this time, we will see the argument of "the widespread
> use of NUL-terminated strings" again for binary.

I'd say this argument is entirely specious.  The entire point of
"binary" is that it explicitly has no restrictions on the permissible
octet values.

> It's OK to document that there may be broken implementations, which
> is totally different from writing a broken specification.

Specifications which are completely different from widespread
implementation are broken.

An mere assertion that disallowing NUL in 7bit and 8bit is "broken"
doesn't carry much weight with me.

-- 
_.John G. Myers		Internet: jgm+@CMU.EDU
			LoseNet:  ...!seismo!ihnp4!wiscvm.wisc.edu!give!up