- From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 1995 23:53:36 -0400
- To: Fisher Mark <FisherM@is3.indy.tce.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>The Base64 alphabet was chosen because it is a compact printable
>representation of base 64 numbers that is portable between ASCII, EBCDIC,
>ISO 646, and ISO 10646 that should have multiple correct alphabet
>translation tables already available.
No, if we are going to go with something simple(-minded), then a
straight CRLF delimited number is more appropriate -- dicking with
bits and base64 is a waste of time if all you'd every save is
one or two bytes.
Right-o then, here's where the perceived consensus lands us.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: chunked
BNF:
Entity-Body = *( chunk )
"0" CRLF
footer
CRLF
chunk = chunk-size CRLF chunk-data CRLF
chunk-size = hex-no-zero *hex
chunk-data = chunk-size(OCTET)
footer = *( Entity-Header )
hex = "0" | hex-no-zero
hex-no-zero = "1"|"2"|"3"|"4"|"5"|"6"|"7"|"8"|"9"
| "A"|"B"|"C"|"D"|"E"|"F"
| "a"|"b"|"c"|"d"|"e"|"f"
....Roy T. Fielding Department of ICS, University of California, Irvine USA
Visiting Scholar, MIT/LCS + World-Wide Web Consortium
(fielding@w3.org) (fielding@ics.uci.edu)
Received on Thursday, 27 July 1995 20:54:43 UTC