[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Masataka Ohta <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Do you think these transport, in the future, should support true
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
> 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
> 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