[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: encodings: do we need binary at all? -Reply

At 14:06 2/25/96, Ed Reed wrote:

>Enough.  Yes we need binary encodings (so we don't have a gratuitous
>+12.5% increase in data size, for one thing).  We also need
>length-preceded strings, so the recipient (usually a server) doesn't have
>to spend a lot of time trying to guess where you meant a string to end.

I agree wholeheartedly about length-preceded strings.  Non-ASCII is also
a requirement, for international language support.

However, there are some protocols in which certificates might be embedded
which are defined to be ASCII.  In those cases, I would hate to see us define
a binary encoding which needs parsing, then radix64 encode that result, then
put that into some protocol which needs ASCII parsing.

Is there a standard for non-ASCII strings [e.g., Kanji] embedded in ASCII

 - Carl

|Carl M. Ellison          cme@cybercash.com   http://www.clark.net/pub/cme |
|CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430                   http://www.cybercash.com/    |
|2100 Reston Parkway           PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 |
|Reston, VA 22091      Tel: (703) 620-4200                                 |