6 ms·

There is also base64URL , where the encoding uses different ascii characters that are url safe. I have seen some devs use BASE64URL but call it just base64, and

There is also base64URL , where the encoding uses different ascii characters that are url safe. I have seen some devs use BASE64URL but call it just base64, and that can lead to some problems for unaware. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4648#section-5 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4648#section-5

JimDabell 3y ago
The problem with base64url is that ~ and . are not letters. This means that double-clicking on something encoded with base64url isn’t going to select the whole thing if you want to copy-paste it. This is annoying needless friction in a huge number of use cases. Base62 encoding (0-9A-Za-z) is almost as efficient as base64url and retains URL safety but is more easily copy-pasted. If you want to eliminate ambiguity for human readers, you can drop to Base58 but in almost all cases, if you are BaseXX-encoding something, it’s long enough that copy-pasting is the norm, so it doesn’t usually matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base62 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base62
- iainmerrick 3y ago
  The problem with base64url is that ~ and . are not letters. No, typically the extra characters used are “-“ and “_”. That’s what the table in the IETF link shows.
  - Acinyx 3y ago
    The issue remains: "-" breaks double clicking to select the full string, which means you'll have to manually select all the characters before copying. Same thing happens with UUIDs: using double clicking, you can only select one block at a time. This isn't a major issue, which means there's no easy answer and it generally comes down to preference if this is a requirement or not.
    - yrro 3y ago
      Double-clicking foo-bar_baz in GNOME Terminal selects the entire string. Anyway, this is something that is user-configurable surely?
      - kevincox 3y ago
        It is in many terminals (I think it is in gnome-terminal) but not in major browsers and a lot of other software.
      - eviks 3y ago
        Very few apps are that user friendly, besides your terminal isn't either since whether you want to select the entire string or not depends on its type
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnisgood 3y ago
        In XTerm it only selects the entire string with this in `~/.Xdefaults`: UXTerm*charClass: 33:48,36-47:48,58-59:48,61:48,63-64:48,95:48,126:48 There is also `UXTerm*on2Clicks` and `UXTerm*on3Clicks`. FWIW, browser only selects either `foo` or `bar_baz`, but not the whole `foo-bar_baz`.
- Aachen 3y ago
  > The problem with base64url is that ~ and . are not letters. This means that double-clicking on something encoded with base64url isn’t going to select the whole thing Well, you're in luck: tilde and dot aren't part of base64url
  - Acinyx 3y ago
    The issue remains: "-" breaks double clicking to select the full string, which means you'll have to manually select all the characters before copying. Same thing happens with UUIDs: using double clicking, you can only select one block at a time. This isn't a major issue, which means there's no easy answer and it generally comes down to preference if this is a requirement or not.
- nly 3y ago
  Encoding and decoding base58 is a lot less efficient (needs arithmetic multiplication with a carry across the stream). Base32 is sufficient in most cases and can avoid some incidental swear words. If you want density go for Z85, which is a 4 -> 5 byte chunked encoding and therefore much more efficient on a pipelined CPU. https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec/32/ https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec/32/
  - JimDabell 3y ago
    Base32 has almost half the efficiency of Base62; Z85 suffers from the same problem as Base64 in terms of including word-breaking punctuation.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      Base32 is far more efficient than that. Base32 allows you to encode 5 bytes in 8 symbols, as compared to Base64, which allows you to encode 6 bytes in 8 symbols. While the exact efficiency will vary based on how many bytes your message is, for the most part Base32 produces output that is only 20% larger than Base64, let alone Base62.
- layer8 3y ago
  Since the encoding is explicitly for use in URLs and filenames, and those generally aren’t selectable by double-clicking either, I don’t see what the problem is.
  - layer8 3y ago
    Besides, regular Base64 has the same problem with "/" and "+".
jameshart 3y ago
Base64url also typically omits padding. Since a base64 string with padding is always guaranteed to be a multiple of four characters long, if you get a string that is not a multiple of four in length, you can figure out how much padding it should have had, which tells you how to handle the last three bytes of decoding. Which makes it a little confusing why base64 needs == padding in the first place.

JimDabell 3y ago

The problem with base64url is that ~ and . are not letters. This means that double-clicking on something encoded with base64url isn’t going to select the whole thing if you want to copy-paste it. This is annoying needless friction in a huge number of use cases. Base62 encoding (0-9A-Za-z) is almost as efficient as base64url and retains URL safety but is more easily copy-pasted. If you want to eliminate ambiguity for human readers, you can drop to Base58 but in almost all cases, if you are BaseXX-encoding something, it’s long enough that copy-pasting is the norm, so it doesn’t usually matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base62 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base62

iainmerrick 3y ago
The problem with base64url is that ~ and . are not letters. No, typically the extra characters used are “-“ and “_”. That’s what the table in the IETF link shows.
- Acinyx 3y ago
  The issue remains: "-" breaks double clicking to select the full string, which means you'll have to manually select all the characters before copying. Same thing happens with UUIDs: using double clicking, you can only select one block at a time. This isn't a major issue, which means there's no easy answer and it generally comes down to preference if this is a requirement or not.
  - yrro 3y ago
    Double-clicking foo-bar_baz in GNOME Terminal selects the entire string. Anyway, this is something that is user-configurable surely?
    - kevincox 3y ago
      It is in many terminals (I think it is in gnome-terminal) but not in major browsers and a lot of other software.
    - eviks 3y ago
      Very few apps are that user friendly, besides your terminal isn't either since whether you want to select the entire string or not depends on its type
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnisgood 3y ago
      In XTerm it only selects the entire string with this in `~/.Xdefaults`: UXTerm*charClass: 33:48,36-47:48,58-59:48,61:48,63-64:48,95:48,126:48 There is also `UXTerm*on2Clicks` and `UXTerm*on3Clicks`. FWIW, browser only selects either `foo` or `bar_baz`, but not the whole `foo-bar_baz`.
Aachen 3y ago
> The problem with base64url is that ~ and . are not letters. This means that double-clicking on something encoded with base64url isn’t going to select the whole thing Well, you're in luck: tilde and dot aren't part of base64url
- Acinyx 3y ago
  The issue remains: "-" breaks double clicking to select the full string, which means you'll have to manually select all the characters before copying. Same thing happens with UUIDs: using double clicking, you can only select one block at a time. This isn't a major issue, which means there's no easy answer and it generally comes down to preference if this is a requirement or not.
nly 3y ago
Encoding and decoding base58 is a lot less efficient (needs arithmetic multiplication with a carry across the stream). Base32 is sufficient in most cases and can avoid some incidental swear words. If you want density go for Z85, which is a 4 -> 5 byte chunked encoding and therefore much more efficient on a pipelined CPU. https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec/32/ https://rfc.zeromq.org/spec/32/
- JimDabell 3y ago
  Base32 has almost half the efficiency of Base62; Z85 suffers from the same problem as Base64 in terms of including word-breaking punctuation.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    Base32 is far more efficient than that. Base32 allows you to encode 5 bytes in 8 symbols, as compared to Base64, which allows you to encode 6 bytes in 8 symbols. While the exact efficiency will vary based on how many bytes your message is, for the most part Base32 produces output that is only 20% larger than Base64, let alone Base62.
layer8 3y ago
Since the encoding is explicitly for use in URLs and filenames, and those generally aren’t selectable by double-clicking either, I don’t see what the problem is.
- layer8 3y ago
  Besides, regular Base64 has the same problem with "/" and "+".

jameshart 3y ago

Base64url also typically omits padding. Since a base64 string with padding is always guaranteed to be a multiple of four characters long, if you get a string that is not a multiple of four in length, you can figure out how much padding it should have had, which tells you how to handle the last three bytes of decoding. Which makes it a little confusing why base64 needs == padding in the first place.