On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 15:20:13 GMT, Jamil Nimeh <jni...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Also in that last example, it seems to suggest that the second octet string > is nested within the first one since it > sits at a second indent layer. They are both primitives completely covered by > their two byte values so shouldn't they > sit at the same indentation level? Or is the indentation not there to suggest > nested substructures and is more for > separation between elements? Or is this what you mean by "lost an indent"? > Also, should the end of content be at the > same indentation level as the initial indefinite length encoding? Yes, all of the enclosed items should be at the same indent level. (A bug as it turns out). I chose to indent the END-OF-CONTENT line at the same level to terminate the list of tag-values at that level All of the items enclosed are at the same level. The updated output is: 0000: 24 80 ; UNIVERSAL CONSTRUCTED OCTET STRING [INDEFINITE] 0002: 04 02 61 62 ; OCTET STRING [2] 'ab' 0006: 04 02 63 64 ; OCTET STRING [2] 'cd' 000a: 00 00 ; END-OF-CONTENT ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/268
