I have implemented Base64 from scratch many times. It takes about 30 lines. If that is too hard it is easy enough to swap the characters over.
Base 256 would use a whole rack of characters that are illegal in URIs. Isn't the alleged point of free software that it is easy to add in features? On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email protected]> wrote: > * Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>That adds significantly to the size of the identifiers. >> >>For my application the amount of space that is available to transport >>the identifiers will be constrained. Thus if X bytes permits 100 sites >>to be secured using a base64 encoding, use of base16 will drop that to >>60 or so. > > So? Maybe for my application I want people to easily compare the URI > with the output from GNU sha256sum which does not have an option for > your particular Base 64 dialect, and maybe you should use Base 256 > without a "digest:" prefix if size is so important? > -- > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email protected] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
