To my mind, that means checksums should be for base64 only, and a very
simple scheme there. None of this is a showstopper for me, but I think
people should step back and consider what they're trying to accomplish
with all the storm and fury. -- Nathaniel
Agreed 1000%!
You didn't say, however, *where* you'd like to put the checksum for BASE64.
There is talk of putting them into the header for that body part, rather than
down in the BASE64 data.
Doing so IMO is much less useful than putting the checksum in the data. I
see the point where it doesn't "fit" somehow to have a parameter in the data.
But from a usability standpoint the checksum fits very well as part of the data.
This (I've made this statement before) allows a standalone b64encode and
b64decode
pair of programs to be written; the user of a pre-XXXX UA can then save the
data & b64decode it with checksum-checking. If the checksum were in the header
this might not (probably will not) happen.
David