On Apr 18, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Marius Scurtescu wrote: > Base64 encoding is a pretty good candidate for binary data, but you > cannot apply the same encoding to text fields.
RFC4648 "URL and Filename safe" Base 64 Alphabet might be a good choice. > Applying base64, or similar encoding appropriate for binary data, to > text fields has two drawbacks: > - renders the field unreadable Binary data is often unreadable. > - increases the size of the field Base 64 increases the size of the encoded element by about 30%. > URL-encoding has the advantage that probably all web frameworks will > have functions to encode and decode this format. URL-encoding increases the size of the encoded element by 300%. -Doug _______________________________________________ specs mailing list specs@openid.net http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
