Is a unit limited to a single line? Choosing any of those separators loses functionality, unlike using CRLF. Of course, with Unicode there's NEL, but that ship has already sailed.
The number of nesting levels is limited by the number of separator characters defined, which is why I wish that ARPAnet had opted for binary protocols way back when instead of character delimited protocols. That, too, is not likely to change. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [[email protected]] on behalf of Paul Gilmartin [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2021 12:10 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: FTP distributed system EBCDIC encoded file On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 15:44:16 +0000, Seymour J Metz wrote: > >The Multics developers chose not to use CR because that would have prevented >overprinting. > >If you use RS to separate lines then you can't use it to separate groups of >lines. There's no equivalent to > > foo <CRLF> bar <CRLF> baz <RS> Tom <CRLF> Dick <CRLF> Harry > How about, then: foo <RS> bar <RS> baz <GS> Tom <RS> Dick <RS> Harry .... choosing arbitrarily among: ASCII code 28 = FS ( File separator ) ASCII code 29 = GS ( Group separator ) ASCII code 30 = RS ( Record separator ) ASCII code 31 = US ( Unit separator ) ... but that's venturing into markup language issues. How many nesting levels should be supported? "There are only three nice numbers: zero, one, and 'as many as you like'." (Source obscure) -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
