[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
protocols?
- 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 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Follow-Ups: