On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email protected]> wrote: > * Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >>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? > > You started this thread saying "it would be better if we had a single > format". How about you abandon this idea, you call your scheme "d64:" > to keep things concise, and the rest of us develop our own format?
Implicit in the idea of a single format is the notion that at least some people will write code for it. Compatibility with unix command line tools would rank really low in my list of priorities if at all. They are easily written and easily added to. That is the whole point of them. I was planning to write a command line tool for supporting the format anyway. There seems to be no man page entry for di. How about something like: di [-d <algorithm>] [-e <algorithm>] [-http domain]* input output If someone wants to compare with a dumb string comparison they need do the necessary case conversions and chop off the parameters part since that is not canonical. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ _______________________________________________ websec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
