From: Kenneth Whistler (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 03 2009 - 12:38:47 CDT
William Overington suggested:
> The suggestion of using b64-encoded binary data could perhaps
> be adapted by placing a Unicode U+FFFC OBJECT REPLACEMENT CHARACTER
> in front of the b64-encoded binary data. That way, the parameter
> passing would always be in Unicode characters and the presence of
> a U+FFFC character would indicate that subsequent characters in
> the parameter should be interpreted as b64-encoded binary data.
It may perhaps be belaboring the obvious, but U+FFFC OBJECT
REPLACEMENT CHARACTER is not defined that way, and would not
indicate that (or anything else) about subsequent characters
in a string parameter.
Any attempt to use U+FFFC in that way would be very unlikely to
be interpreted as such by any Unicode-conformant system, and
in fact is nothing more than an arbitrary attempt to establish
a text convention which would consist of a higher-level protocol.
One could equally well (and probably with equal outcome) assert
that a U+25E7 SQUARE WITH LEFT HALF BLACK character would indicate
that subsequent characters in a parameter should be interpreted
as b64-encoded binary data. Or for that matter, that subsequent
characters in a string should be interpreted as a chocolate chip
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 12:42:36 CDT