Re: A change to string encoding

[Tomas Mraz <tmraz@redhat.com>]

On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 11:07 +0000, Matthew Booth wrote:
> The problem with current string encoding is that it is parsable, but
> non-human readable. It also complicates parsing by requiring 2 different
> decoding methods to be implemented.
> 
> It occurs to me that a URL encoding scheme would also meet the parsing
> requirements. Additionally:
> 
> 1. It is always human readable.
> 2. There is only 1 encoding scheme.
> 3. Substring matching on encoded strings will always succeed.
> 
> URL encoding is just one way to achieve this, and has the advantage of
> being widely implemented. However, the minimal requirements would be a
> scheme which encoded only separator characters (whitespace in this case)
> without the use of those separators.
> 
> I'm sure this has been considered before. Given that it's a road I'm
> considering heading down, what were the reasons for not doing it?

It was already discussed here without a conclusion:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-audit&m=120978583018941&w=2
-- 
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
                                              Turkish proverb