On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 7:09 AM, Christian Floerkemeier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am generally also in favaour of the Base64 encode approach because it is > probably the cleanest solution. I just see the problem that this limits the > readability and authoring by a human of the LTK XML file (one of its major > use cases, right?) if control characters are heavily used. However, the only > alternative I see is some LTK special encoding rule for 0x0 (e.g. \NULL) > and using XML1.1: > > <rp:ReaderFirmwareVersion>3.0.1.240\NULL</rp:ReaderFirmwareVersion> >
OK, then I think we have narrowed down to two options: a) We should hex encode or base64 encode the complete string in the case of anything with restricted control characters or NULL and we just recommend no use of control characters in utf8v's. If no one uses the "feature" then all strings will be readable. My guess is that most implementations will not use control characters anyway. b) We come up with a LTK unique encoding rule for restricted control characters or NULL. Perhaps a limited form of C escapes where we only allow \x?? for the control characters. Applications are responsible for decoding/encoding the escaped characters. I don't have a strong feeling about either. -- John. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ llrp-toolkit-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/llrp-toolkit-devel
