- From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 1995 14:30:49 -0600 (CST)
- To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Eric W. Sink: > >>HTTP already uses MIME-64 encoding for converting octects to characters; > >>I'd suggest that re-using the same encoding scheme would make sense > >>(since servers are likely to include the code already, and it's also > >>more compact that 4bits->1octect encoding). > > > >I agree. (and not just because its only a single line change in my code :-) > > > >MD5s are recognisable as base64 objects. Base16 is still appropriate for the > >likes of timestamps and such though since they are genuinely numbers > >rather than > >blocks of random bits. > > I disagree. I think the choice of base64 vs. base16 is purely arbitrary, > since the space savings is hardly significant. John Franks has already > implemented Digest using base16 in his WN server. Spyglass has already > implemented Digest using base16 in our client, which is shipping. My > understanding is that Netscape has implemented Digest using base16 for a > future release of their server. > > I see no compelling reason to change to base64. > I agree with Eric. It is simpler and easier to implement base16. All else being equal Simple is Better. John Franks
Received on Wednesday, 22 March 1995 12:46:47 UTC