Re: Arrays: digitally signing them

Usually a digital signature is applied to a specific sequence of bytes so needing a canonical representation isn't necessary. (They are used to ensure the specific bytes are as signed). What's the reason for requiring ordered keys in this case? Note that utf-8 has multiple representations per s

Re: BSON libarry [was: Re: Arrays: digitally signing them]

On 12/01/2016 19:08, Richard Gaskin wrote: So yes, by all means, but given the many ways your vast talents could be applied I'm hoping your definition of "free time" is as I imagine it, behind a list of other things a far great number of people need than my specialized desire to somehow show up

Re: BSON libarry [was: Re: Arrays: digitally signing them]

Peter TB Brett wrote: > On 12/01/2016 18:25, Richard Gaskin wrote: > >> Some time ago I submitted a request for BSONencode and BSONdecode: >> >> >> Peter's point there is well taken, that this could be implemented as >> a library; it wouldn't eve

BSON libarry [was: Re: Arrays: digitally signing them]

On 12/01/2016 18:25, Richard Gaskin wrote: Some time ago I submitted a request for BSONencode and BSONdecode: Peter's point there is well taken, that this could be implemented as a library; it wouldn't even need to be in Builder, since LiveCod

Re: Arrays: digitally signing them

David Bovill wrote: I was looking into standards for digitally signing JSON - and I wandered about signing Livecode arrays. This would need some way to normalise the array construction as (from the docs): Arrays in LiveCode are un-ordered. This means in particular that encoding two arrays will

Arrays: digitally signing them

I was looking into standards for digitally signing JSON - and I wandered about signing Livecode arrays. This would need some way to normalise the array construction as (from the docs): Arrays in LiveCode are un-ordered. This means in particular that encoding > two arrays will not necessarily produ