8000 bpo-36700: Updated obsolete references for RFC 3548 to RFC 4648 by paulehoffman · Pull Request #2336 · python/cpython · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

bpo-36700: Updated obsolete references for RFC 3548 to RFC 4648 #2336

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

bpo-36700: Updated obsolete references for RFC 3548 to RFC 4648 #2336

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9cdba94
Updated obsolete references for RFC 3548 to RFC 4648
paulehoffman Jun 23, 2017
252eedb
Fixed indendation issue in my addition
paulehoffman Jun 24, 2017
d585264
Revered change to initial comments
paulehoffman Jun 26, 2017
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
Fixed indendation issue in my addition
  • Loading branch information
@paulehoffman
paulehoffman committed Jun 24, 2017
commit 252eedb9ead3f72b11b009ea66a71d3193a63719
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion Doc/library/base64.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ The modern interface provides:
which letter the digit 1 should be mapped to (when *map01* is not ``None``, the
digit 0 is always mapped to the letter O). For security purposes the default is
``None``, so that 0 and 1 are not allowed in the input. Note that :rfc:`4648`
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this true? Looks to me like the relevant language is present on page 5 of RFC 4648. The wording is a little different from RFC 3548 but the gist seems to be the same.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change is also not mentioned in the Changes since RFC 3548 section. I think we can leave the original wording on these pages and just update the number.

(which made :rfc:`3548` obsolete) did not allow such a mapping.
(which made :rfc:`3548` obsolete) did not allow such a mapping.

A :exc:`binascii.Error` is raised if *s* is
incorrectly padded or if there are non-alphabet characters present in the
Expand Down
0