On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:07 +0000, Matthew Booth wrote: > The problem with current string encoding is that it is parsable, but > non-human readable. It also complicates parsing by requiring 2 different > decoding methods to be implemented. > > It occurs to me that a URL encoding scheme would also meet the parsing > requirements. Additionally: > > 1. It is always human readable. > 2. There is only 1 encoding scheme. > 3. Substring matching on encoded strings will always succeed. > > URL encoding is just one way to achieve this, and has the advantage of > being widely implemented. However, the minimal requirements would be a > scheme which encoded only separator characters (whitespace in this case) > without the use of those separators. > > I'm sure this has been considered before. Given that it's a road I'm > considering heading down, what were the reasons for not doing it?
It was already discussed here without a conclusion: http://marc.info/?l=linux-audit&m=120978583018941&w=2 -- Tomas Mraz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb -- Linux-audit mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
