Re: Form feed in Net-UTF8? (Was: FWD: Re: Comments onUnicode Format for Network Interchange

[Martin Duerst <[e-mail]>]

FF is a tricky one. It's definitely used in RFCs, and can
be helpful for printing (although less and less so). But
in a protocol context, where pages are nonexisting, it will
only cause trouble. So I'd suggest that the SHOULD NOT is kept,
but give a bit more detail. For some shot at wording, I'd change:

"SHOULD NOT be used unless required by exceptional circumstances"

to something like:

"SHOULD NOT be used unless the protocol or format has a need
to express page breaks in plain text (as e.g. done in the format
for RFCs)."

Regards,   Martin.

At 00:57 07/10/06, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>
>--On Friday, 05 October, 2007 17:12 +0200 Stephane Bortzmeyer
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Doug Ewell said:
>> 
>>> > I recommend that the control code FF (form feed, U+000C) be
>>> > likewise permitted.  The form feed function is well known
>>> > and well defined in almost all printing functions, and all
>>> > RFCs issued in modern times use FF to separate pages.  It
>>> > would ironic indeed for the Internet-Draft to retain the
>>> > requirement that form feeds "SHOULD NOT be used unless
>>> > required by exceptional circumstances" while advancing
>>> > toward publication as an RFC, complete with form feeds!
>> 
>> And I did not see anywhere a discussion of this specific
>> point. I notice that draft-klensin-net-utf8-04 still disallows
>> (actually, it is a SHOULD NOT in section 2.1) form feeds and
>> I'm not sure of the rationale. Why end-of-lines and not
>> end-of-pages?
>
>Because line breaks are required even for unformatted streams.
>FormFeeds are not.  
>
>But I find the above arguments reasonably persuasive and will
>put FF back in unless others feel strongly about this.
>
>    john


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]