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

*To*: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ron Rivest), spki@c2.net*Subject*: Re: Base-64 encoding proposal*From*: Bill Frantz <frantz@netcom.com>*Date*: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 21:19:39 -0700*In-Reply-To*: <199704160240.AA02036@swan.lcs.mit.edu>*Sender*: owner-spki@c2.net

At 7:40 PM -0700 4/15/97, Ron Rivest wrote: >I think the "right" way to think of base-64 encodings is as follows. >Rather than thinking of base-64 as a way of encoding some object >(a byte string or maybe an S-expression), just think of base-64 >as a 6-bit per character channel rather than an 8-bit per character >channel. You just have to read enough 6-bit chars to get your >next 8 bits of data, which you spit out. This has nice side effects, >such as eliminating the need for a separate "fragmentation" mechanism. Yes. Base-64 can be proof against things that are even worse than EBCDIC translation. Been there, done that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | God could make the world | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in six days because he did | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz@netcom.com | not have an installed base.| Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

**Base-64 encoding proposal***From*: rivest@theory.lcs.mit.edu (Ron Rivest)

- Prev by Date:
**[ggm@connect.com.au: Re: Base-64 encoding proposal ]** - Next by Date:
**Re: Canonical form for signing S-expressions** - Prev by thread:
**Base-64 encoding proposal** - Next by thread:
**Re: Base-64 encoding proposal** - Index(es):