[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2171?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12689103#action_12689103 ]
Jonas commented on WICKET-2171: ------------------------------- Yes, I've seen that in the javadoc. I just pointed out that a Base64 with those modifications is __NOT__ RFC 3548, section 4 compliant - the alphabet is different! Of course, you can use your own alphabet, but then you shouldn't claim compliance with RFC 3548, section 4 > Base64UrlSafe claims to be RFC 3548 compliant, but isn't > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WICKET-2171 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2171 > Project: Wicket > Issue Type: Bug > Components: wicket > Affects Versions: 1.3.5, 1.4-RC2 > Reporter: Jonas > Assignee: Juergen Donnerstag > Priority: Minor > Fix For: 1.4-RC3 > > > The javadoc of Base64UrlSafe claims to use the alphabet defined in RFC 3548, > section 4 [1]. > This isn't true, it uses '*' for 62 instead of '-' and '-' for 63 instead of > '_'. > I suggest to make the code RFC compliant. > If you decide not to make it RFC compliant, at least to let the javadoc > clearly state > that the changes made to Base64UrlSafe breaks compatibility with other Base64 > RFC 3548, section 4 > compliant encoders/decoders. > [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3548.html -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.