FW: First Attempt at Crypto Library

Simon Marlow simonmar@microsoft.com
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 09:52:50 +0100

> > I initially thought along these lines, but then concluded=20
> that it's not
> > that simple (or at least, that's not the only interpretation of the
> > classification).
> Is a deep hierarchy really necessary?

Well, it seems useful to group codecs by purpose: Audio, Video,
Compression, etc. so I believe we're not into diminishing returns at
this level.

Matt Harden said:
> I would agree with Codec.Binary.Base64.  Codec.Text should be=20
> reserved for codecs that deal with text data; i.e. translating
> text between various encodings like unicode, ISO 8859-1, ascii,
> ebcdic, etc.

That's a good point.  Unless anyone objects, let's reserve Codec.Text
for the text encodings (UTF-8 and so on).

The options for Base64 and friends are therefore: Codec.Binary.Base64,
Codec.Base64, or Codec.General.Base64.  Or even
Codec.BinaryToText.Base64?  None stands out as the obvious choice to me,
but we could defer the decision until the library actually exists ;-)