34 ms·
All the issues mentioned in these comments is a good indication why this encoding isn't more widely known/used. I myself typically binary compress then base64
by karmakaze 3y ago
All the issues mentioned in these comments is a good indication why this encoding isn't more widely known/used.
I myself typically binary compress then base64 encode.
- bcaxis 3y agoFor your trouble, you save some extra bytes with 85 vs 64.
- petre 3y agoWith the added bonus of funny characters which are a pain to encode in JSON, XML and URLs. I guess I'll keep using using URL safe Base64, thank you.
- bcaxis 3y agoModifying the base alphabet is simple if there are a couple of problem characters. I use 85 in json just fine without escaping overhead. Never tried for URLs or XML.
- Varriount 3y agoGood to know I'm not the only one who has done this! I once wrote a template generation tool that embedded its input configuration into its output files as base64-encoded gzip'd JSON. Worked quite well at allowing template regeneration.
- jgalt212 3y agoand then the webserver probably recompresses again via gzip.