Hello Rob!

15 Apr 19 03:49, you wrote to me:

 >>  Is not that, why Fidonet makes a distict between a hard and a soft
 >> return
 >>  0d versus 8d

 RS> That's a good question. I haven't see any BBS message editors that insert
 RS> a so-called "soft CR" and FTS-1 says they (character 0x8d) should be
 RS> ignored when importing packets, so that whole concept just seems to be an
 RS> anachronism. Does anyone actuall send/receive "soft CRs"?

 My impression has always been, that the soft CR's will be interted where
 the author wants to have line breaks and the hard RC is the end of a
 paragraph. When you want paragraphs formatted to your own screen width, you
 can ignore the soft CR's.

 If your screen width allows for it, you can follow the intent of the author
 by following the soft RC's.

 If the author want to present tables, he should end every line with a hard CR.
In that case the line will be folded, if the author uses line lengths above
 your screen width.

 When viewers follow your @cols kludge, I could imagine that lines, wider
 that the viewers screen, can be concatenated and possibly the screen can be
 be shifted left and right, to keep the layout integrity of the message.

 I am not aware of editor inserting of CR's but Tom Jennings editor certainly
 did. There must be others as well. For personal use I made several message
 viewers, where I had reason to converted soft CR's to hard CR's.
 In these quickies, that usually saved me from having to parse paragraph
 long lines.

 As for acceptance for system specific kludges. If you think they are
 usefull, intoduce them. If other developers follow, great. If many do, it
 is time to write a FTS document.

 As for semingly useless kludges, many usenet and e-mail gateways preserve all
 or many RFC header line in kludges. Nobody complains there.

Kees

--- GoldED-NSF/LNX 1.1.5-b20100318