Kless wrote: > So the next encoding possible would of base-128 (7-bits encoding) A while ago I wanted to pack as much information as possible into a string of printable characters, and I came up with a base-95 encoding that packs 9 bytes into 11 characters. The application involved representing data using Python string literals, so it was important that only printable characters were used. I settled on the 9/11 combination as a reasonable compromise between packing efficiency and not having the block size too long. If anyone's interested, I could dig out the encoding and decoding routines I wrote. -- Greg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4