W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-dawg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: md5sum and sha1sum functions

From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:39:18 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimC724nYd_Cd40ag1vmnda58Ro6d9EFnaevbJFk@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
Cc: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>, SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com> wrote:
> If these are going to return a simple literal containing hex characters, rather than some 128 / 160 / 256 bit integer datatype, then I'd prefer MD5_HEX() etc.

The standard result of this algorithm is almost always presented as a
hex string, so that may be redundant. It might be nice to have a
version that returned a xsd:hexBinary. I also thought it would be nice
to accept an xsd:hexBinary as an alternative to a string. That said, I
didn't suggest anything like these since I was trying to keep it
simple, and not bloat the spec.


> I marginally prefer named functions, e.g. SHA256_HEX(?x), rather than SHA_HEX(?x, 256). Length might not be enough to distinguish all algorithms on it own, so we could end up with some odd cases.
>
> BTW, hexadecimal SHA1 values are 40 characters long.

They are indeed. I copied/pasted from MD5 and missed that part, sorry.

Paul
Received on Monday, 6 December 2010 17:39:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:15:44 GMT