On July 3, 2008 at 10:52, Barry Warsaw wrote: > You may be right that the readability argument is specious. It may be that > cut-n-paste is the overwhelming use case for archived-at. Does that mean > you'd argue for the slightly shorter base64 encoding of the hash?
I have no strong feelings on this matter, but base64 does allow for the '/' character, which can be a problem for usage within URLs since it is a path separator. That alone may make base32 the better choice, even though it will lead to a longer string. --ewh --------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off this list, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message text UNSUBSCRIBE MHONARC-DEV
