Proposed minor spec changes, for comment.

[colecmac at protonmail.com]

These are good additions, thanks.

I take issue with, maybe predictably, number 2. I didn't realize
that RFC existed, and I was surprised to read it. Are there any
other formats that actually follow this? Take markdown for
example, plenty of people write markdown with only a \n at the
end of each line, and it doesn't affect anything. In fact, in the
markdown spec, it explicitly says just \n is fine:
https://spec.commonmark.org/0.29/#line-ending

I don't see the point in following the RFC in this case, I think
it adds needless complication to the spec. Obviously it's not
such a big change to server software, but I don't think there's a
good reason to add it.

> Rationale: Don't break foundational RFCs.

It would be hard to argue with this, except that there seems to be
a precedent of not caring about this specific part of this RFC.
I think Gemini would be less surprising and more simple, if it
disregarded this like most other specs seem to do.

I'm in favor of defining a line ending as \r\n OR \n.

Thoughts?

makeworld