On Tuesday, June 12, 2012 12:10:30 PM Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > On 5/24/12 8:44 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > > On 5/24/12 1:01 AM, Sergey Dobrov wrote: > >> On 05/23/2012 04:45 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >>> Old thread alert! > >>> > >>> > >>> Well, the spec says that the length restriction applies to the > >>> base64-encoded data, so I think we meant that this does *not* apply to > >>> the raw data. However, you seem to be saying that this might be > >>> difficult to implement. Have other folks experienced this problem? > >> > >> Have other folks experienced this problem implementing things right ;) > >> > >> I know that some implementations (maybe all?) measure raw data and not > >> base64. > > > > If that's what all code does now, then I think it's fine for us to > > update the spec so that it reflects reality. > > Does anyone object to making this change in the spec?
I think measuring the raw (pre-base64-encoded) data is the most sensible, and likely what I had originally intended but poorly conveyed in the XEP. So this is fine by me, especially if implementations are working this way. Justin
