- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 11:02:20 -0700
- To: w3c/webpayments <webpayments@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2017 18:02:53 UTC
Agree with the rationale. Makes sense for this to be platform specific. Just as an FYI, for those interested, here are 4 different specs that define different ways to encode a hash. There are probably more. (Insert mandatory link to XKCD comic about standards here) 1. Naming things with hashes - [RFC6920](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920) 2. [Sub-resource Integirty](https://www.w3.org/TR/SRI/) 3. [Google's Digital Asset Links](https://developers.google.com/digital-asset-links/v1/getting-started) 4. [Multi-hash](https://github.com/multiformats/multihash) 5. [Crypto-conditions](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomas-crypto-conditions-02) (Uses RFC6920 for text encoding but has its own binary encoding) -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/225#issuecomment-292257838
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2017 18:02:53 UTC