Re: [SyncEvolution] uri + binary PHOTO values (was: Re: [os-libsynthesis] field merging + parameters)
On Fr, 2011-07-22 at 15:41 +0200, Lukas Zeller wrote:
Hi Patrick,
On Jul 22, 2011, at 15:00 , Patrick Ohly wrote:
> I couldn't think of cases where avoiding binary encoding might have a
> negative effect, but you are right, it is not according to spec and it
> makes sense to not change existing behavior.
Although I guess many clients would bail out when encountering a PHOTO
(non-URI type) with non-B64 content,
Why? Because they (incorrectly) assume that PHOTO must be B64 encoded,
without checking the parameters to ensure that it really is?
Just wondering. I can imagine that there are such clients.
I can't imagine photo data possibly be ASCII so I admit this
cannot
happen.
There are pure-ASCII image formats. Okay, not very common in vCards I
guess ;-)
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.