3 ms·
I'm actually working on encrypting database keys like this, and I opted for a string ID with "url safe" base64. It avoids the ambiguity of looking like a UUID w
by bajsejohannes 3y ago
I'm actually working on encrypting database keys like this, and I opted for a string ID with "url safe" base64. It avoids the ambiguity of looking like a UUID when it's not, and I prefer "o3Ru98R3Qw-_x2MdiEEdSQ" in a URL over "a3746ef7-c477-430f-bfc7-631d88411d49". (Not that either one is very beautiful)
- matja 3y agoCurious on the preference there, especially when characters in base64url encoding can look similar/ambiguous in some fonts.
- bajsejohannes 3y agoThe preference is purely about the amount of characters. I hope no one will ever actually read or write these URLs, but you never know...
- matja 3y agoAh in that case, base58 can be useful because it doesn't use characters that may be ambiguous in some fonts (doesn't use: 0/O/I/l , but does use: 1/i)