Re: attribute exchange value encoding

On 29-May-07, at 2:33 AM, Claus Färber wrote: > Johnny Bufu schrieb: >> The attribute metadata can be used to define attribute-specific >> encodings, which should deal with issues like this. > > Ah, so the _usual_ way is that the metadata (Can this be renamed to > "datatype definition"? "metadata

RE: attribute exchange value encoding

I agree with Claus. We may not need a base64 type. Guoping -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Claus Färber Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:33 AM To: specs@openid.net Subject: Re: attribute exchange value encoding Johnny Bufu schrieb: >

Re: attribute exchange value encoding

Johnny Bufu schrieb: > The attribute metadata can be used to define attribute-specific > encodings, which should deal with issues like this. Ah, so the _usual_ way is that the metadata (Can this be renamed to "datatype definition"? "metadata" is very misleading.) defines the encoding. For bina

Re: attribute exchange value encoding

Johnny Bufu schrieb: > I believe the HTTP encoding [1] in the OpenID spec will take care of > this part, i.e. before putting the OpenID + AX message on the wire, > the OpenID layer has to HTTP-encode it. Maybe "Base 64 Encoding with URL and Filename Safe Alphabet" (RFC 3548, section 4) should

Re: attribute exchange value encoding

Hi Gouping, On 28-May-07, at 9:22 PM, Guoping Liu wrote: > I have a couple comments on Section 3.3.2 Default Encoding of a Binary > Value. > > First, the character set of standard Base64 encoding is not URL-safe. > Specifically, '+', '/' and '=' need to be URL-encoded. So, we need to > URL-encode

RE: attribute exchange value encoding

Johnny: I have a couple comments on Section 3.3.2 Default Encoding of a Binary Value. First, the character set of standard Base64 encoding is not URL-safe. Specifically, '+', '/' and '=' need to be URL-encoded. So, we need to URL-encode the value after base64 encoding. Secondly, different plat

Re: attribute exchange value encoding

Hi Drummond, On 25-May-07, at 8:55 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: >> One remaining question is about the choice of encoding for strings. >> Percent-encoding (RFC3968) seems the simplest from a spec >> perspective, however some libraries provide (better) support for the >> older URL-encoding (RFC1738), w

RE: attribute exchange value encoding

>Johnny Bufu wrote: > >While at IIW, I asked around what people thought about the encoding >mechanisms we've added recently, in order to allow for transferring >any data types. The consensus was that everyone would prefer >something simpler and lighter. > >So I've rewritten the encoding secti

Re: attribute exchange value encoding

On 24-May-07, at 5:15 PM, Johnny Bufu wrote: > Please review section 3.3 Attribute Values to see if there are any > issues. Of course it helps if there's a link to click on... I missed it in the previous message: