2 ms·
The Victorian ones are way worse, they contain a massive JWT blob, with a 512 byte signature, really difficult to scan on a lot of phones.
by WatchDog 5y ago
The Victorian ones are way worse, they contain a massive JWT blob, with a 512 byte signature, really difficult to scan on a lot of phones.
- dbaupp 5y agoYeah, the JWT is huge, and contains a bunch of unnecessary data, even ignoring the huge signature (132 bytes, I think?). It even uses error correction M, down from NSW’s H or the article’s Q. It looks like they still end up as version 18 despite that. That said, it seems like there’s two versions of the Victorian codes. I can find others online that have a base64 snippet containing: { "t":1, "lid":"<base64'd 64-byte ID>", "ln":"<name here> (Yes, seemingly without the trailing "}, as a microoptimisation?) This uses error correction M, and ends up as a version 12 code. I don't know for sure which codes are 'current' but I suspect the JWT ones are the older ones, based on https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-s-qr-codes-badly-made-developers-say-20210617-p581r6.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/victoria-s-qr-co...