On 04/06/2016 05:44 AM, J Decker wrote: > encode into utf8 codepoints maybe? which would expand 0x80-0xFF by 1 > character each... and you could violate utf rules and encode a F880 > that's a 0 codepoint...
You mean for hashes? Hm.. that's an interesting idea, which might get us a whole new encoding. However, I don't quite think we can use Unicode there, but should really stick to ASCII. Even base64 is a bad idea, because it contains '/' and '+' chars, which are usually treated as separators. But you don't want revision ids to word-wrap. With these restrictions, base58 is about as space efficient as you can get. Kind Regards Markus Wanner
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Monotone-devel mailing list Monotone-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monotone-devel
