please prefer base 32 over base 64 (was: Re: [p2p-hackers] Bitzi (was Various identifier choices))

David Hopwood david.hopwood at zetnet.co.uk
Tue Oct 16 22:25:02 UTC 2001


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Zooko wrote:
> > (or pick your favorite protocol prefix and write a protocol handler)
> 
> Yes, that's a good idea!
> 
> mojo://3kizijb64xp3ncxae4isqzt3qnctf7vd8ej2kedcv3wqmmpfwfjw6dcvpkxmzqiz
> 
> versus
> 
> mojo://Ftp3ZuSNvzDw6KmYkmTA81ZGVb-gLJ53qBoY945FO0qvR8pyzBWYBQ

"//" should only be used for heirarchical schemes (so not in this case).

In general, anyone designing new URI schemes should have read RFC 2718,
RFC 2717, RFC 2396, RFC 2732, and
<http://www.w3.org/International/2000/03/draft-masinter-url-i18n-05.txt>.

- -- 
David Hopwood <david.hopwood at zetnet.co.uk>

Home page & PGP public key: http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hopwood/
RSA 2048-bit; fingerprint 71 8E A6 23 0E D3 4C E5  0F 69 8C D4 FA 66 15 01
Nothing in this message is intended to be legally binding. If I revoke a
public key but refuse to specify why, it is because the private key has been
seized under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act; see www.fipr.org/rip


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: noconv

iQEVAwUBO8utVTkCAxeYt5gVAQHsJggAx/i3q+O4X6Tmaoqi4Q+nKjs9orqBkBzD
hHtmVJyFo7wvAOaS1w1itKwrx+eVWUVElsDA/hy1HLm14lMN3XnKu9ZII3jKOMYQ
K2eC7ZUpxceih9uA07uNxoVtqWYPXKgDKa4JsvdWQLog6rNH+kg2D7DdgFRPYpg3
nJmkTM3XDxOPnyPPl2NGB3s2thZKuGa2W8EOM2gHdDXPGkPqf/CeaS99yLmtvLAE
dN2K/sSImiLTKdX1B8q0HSjI13mO8Z882rJXTlj9k/byuDnrP3RlZ983cMIA3SQ/
dF8XqPuRQZ3LyELnqcbNJWjZIOBUDnUdyCAI8efhDeUhUb9iG3+IeQ==
=X6p8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list