Re: RFC 5064 Archived-At header

2008-07-07 08:37:22
On July 3, 2008 at 10:52, Barry Warsaw wrote:

You may be right that the readability argument is specious. It may be that
cut-n-paste is the overwhelming use case for archived-at. Does that mean
you'd argue for the slightly shorter base64 encoding of the hash?

I have no strong feelings on this matter, but base64 does allow
for the '/' character, which can be a problem for usage within
URLs since it is a path separator.

That alone may make base32 the better choice, even though it
will lead to a longer string.


To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo(_at_)mhonarc(_dot_)org with the

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>