On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Joshua Paine <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 9/19/2011 7:15 PM, Stephan Beal wrote: > >> To the C side it's pretty easy, but adding any sort of encoding > > inherently limits the clients which can use it. >> > > Well, unless you only use it for stuff that fossil treats as binary anyway, > in which case no one's limited, because the alternative is not having access > at all. LOL! That's a very fair point. (Sometimes my short-sightedness frightens me.) and JS cannot natively deal with binary data (that's coming in v5 or >> whatever new version is coming soon). >> > > Standard javascript doesn't have this ability yet, but individual impl have > relevant capabilities. E.g., privileged JS in XUL has access to files and > can get base64 strings from them, and the canvas element has a toDataURL > method that returns base64 encoded data plus a tiny amount of metadata. The JS version accompanying HTMLv5 (i don't remember the version number) contains some support for binary data. Some browsers have already started implementing this and some apps already use it (e.g. gmail). So the option for binary data certainly can't be ruled out altogether. OTOH, while JS is expected to (==i expect) be the primary client, there will likely be other platforms out there for which base64 is more convenient. -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
