- From: Paul Gearon <gearon@ieee.org>
- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:39:18 -0500
- 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 UTC