[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Elliotte Rusty Harold scripsit:
> That's simply not true. Text editors on various platforms routinely
> and transparently recognize the \n, \r, and \r\n line ending
> conventions.
vi does not, nor does Emacs.
> It's not like NEL can do anything \r and \n can't do, or that
> documents need all three at once. It's just a different and uncommon
> convention to mean the same thing. This is not like adding the
> Cyrillic alphabet on top of the Latin alphabet. They Cyrillic
> alphabet lets you say things you can't say in ASCII. However, NEL
> doesn't say anything new, just uses a different code point for the
> exact same thing.
Absolutely! And you would be making the exact same arguments if
XML 1.0 accepted only #xD #xA as a valid line ending, and I were
proposing adding support for just #xD and just #xA. The vast
majority of all systems, after all, both generate and expect
#xD #xA.
--
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
Please leave your values | Check your assumptions. In fact,
at the front desk. | check your assumptions at the door.
--sign in Paris hotel | --Miles Vorkosigan
|
