[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2171?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12689103#action_12689103
]
Jonas commented on WICKET-2171:
-------------------------------
Yes, I've seen that in the javadoc. I just pointed out that a Base64 with those
modifications
is __NOT__ RFC 3548, section 4 compliant - the alphabet is different!
Of course, you can use your own alphabet, but then you shouldn't claim
compliance with RFC 3548, section 4
> Base64UrlSafe claims to be RFC 3548 compliant, but isn't
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WICKET-2171
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2171
> Project: Wicket
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: wicket
> Affects Versions: 1.3.5, 1.4-RC2
> Reporter: Jonas
> Assignee: Juergen Donnerstag
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 1.4-RC3
>
>
> The javadoc of Base64UrlSafe claims to use the alphabet defined in RFC 3548,
> section 4 [1].
> This isn't true, it uses '*' for 62 instead of '-' and '-' for 63 instead of
> '_'.
> I suggest to make the code RFC compliant.
> If you decide not to make it RFC compliant, at least to let the javadoc
> clearly state
> that the changes made to Base64UrlSafe breaks compatibility with other Base64
> RFC 3548, section 4
> compliant encoders/decoders.
> [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3548.html
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
