• To: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Subject: Re: Fwd: RFC 3548 on The Base16, Base32, and Base64 DataEncodings
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:39:35 -0400
• Cc: xml-Dev <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708222426.02437db8@s...>
• References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030708222426.02437db8@s...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

Simon St.Laurent wrote:
> Base64 encoding has a new home.
 > URL:        ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc3548.txt

Unfortunately that document is pretty crappy, and we are better off with 
the current practice of referencing MIME.

1.  It defines an "alternate" base 64 mechanism with similar name but a 
different character set.  This will be confusing, especially since it 
says "should not" and not "SHOULD not" (or even better "MUST NOT") be 
represented as base64.

2.  It should have said "ignore whitespace", rather than encouraging 
output to be a single long line by default.
	/r$

-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview  http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• References:
  • Fwd: RFC 3548 on The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• Prev by Date: RE: re: Good Times Ahead for "Sharecroppers"? (Was: [OT] Tim Bray on Slashdot)
• Next by Date: Re: Xquery and XSLT?
• Previous by thread: An example of an XML usage
• Next by thread: Fwd: RE: Fwd: RFC 3548 on The Base16, Base32, and Base64 Data Encodings
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread