[ntp:questions] PPS only configuration

Brian Utterback brian.utterback at oracle.com
Fri Feb 22 13:51:21 UTC 2013


On 2/22/2013 1:36 AM, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-02-22, Brian Utterback <brian.utterback at oracle.com> wrote:
>> On 2/21/2013 7:00 PM, unruh wrote:
>>> Note that rmc 5322 is 2008. Many of the news readers are older than
>>> that.
>> Another reason to refer to the RFC I quoted, which dates back to the 90's.
>>
>> So, it would appear that is the poster uses format=flowed test, then
>> your reader should handle it. But if someone is using just text/plain,
>> then they should break the lines at a reasonable place.
> No. If the person wants his post to be easily readable by as many people
> as possible, he breaks his lines. If he does not care if people read his
> posts, or wants to make a point about line lengths,  then he can do whatever he wants.
>
>

Yes, but as we have seen from the RFC, the sender's software should take 
care of that on sending (if using flowed) and the reader's software 
should take care of it on reading, even if the sender has not (again if 
using flowed). The point is that if you are using flowed format, 
inserting CR at the end of each line defeats the purpose. Software that 
mixes these modes makes it difficult for everyone. For instance, input 
text fields in HTML forms often wrap the lines on input when you reach 
the margin of the field, but do not insert an actual CR, so that when 
the entered text is viewed on a resulting HTML page, it might end up as 
one long line. Inserting CR's at the end of the line on input each time 
the words wrap is a huge pain since you can't tell if it was your CR or 
the auto-wrap that caused the linefeed, and doesn't help if the input 
field is of a different width from the output field anyway.

All of the above was entered with no CRs except the one at the end that 
signaled a new paragraph. You probably see this okay because my mailer 
will follow the RFC I quoted and limit the line lengths anyway. But that 
is a "should", not a "must". Even if it did not, anyone viewing it with 
a conformant reader would still see it as multiple lines. However, if I 
were to insert the CRs at each line as you suggest then it would no 
longer look right for those using conformant readers.

Of course, that only applies if the format is "flowed". If it is 
text/plain without that format, then the CRs are necessary, with the 
disadvantages noted in the RFC. That's why they created "flowed" in the 
first place. But making this a little more tricky, it isn't like I chose 
"flowed" anywhere, my software did it without my knowledge. And in the 
end, that is kind of what we expect from our software, to "do the right 
thing".

Brian.


More information about the questions mailing list