Lots of current and near-future tech relies heavily on secure hashes as identifiers; these are usually represented as hexadecimal strings. For instance, in a previous post I threw out the strawman
h: URN scheme that looks like this:
<!-- jQuery 1.5.2 --> <script src="h:sha1,b8dcaa1c866905c0bdb0b70c8e564ff1c3fe27ad"></script>
Now the problem with this is, these hexadecimal strings are inconveniently long and are only going to get longer. SHA-1 (as shown above) produces 160-bit hashes, which take 40 characters to represent in hex. That algorithm is looking kinda creaky these days; the most convenient replacement is SHA-256. As the name implies, it produces 256-bit hashes, which take 64 characters to write out in hex. The next generation of secure hash algorithms, currently under development at NIST, are also going to produce 256-bit (and up) hashes. The inconvenience of these lengthy hashes becomes even worse if we want to use them as components of a URI with structure to it (as opposed to being the entirety of a URN, as above). Clearly some encoding other than hex, with its 2x expansion, is desirable.
Hashes are incompressible, so we can’t hope to pack a 256-bit hash into fewer than 32 characters, or a 160-bit hash into fewer than 20 characters. And we can’t just dump the raw binary string into our HTML, because HTML is not designed for that—there is no way to tell the HTML parser
the next 20 characters are a binary literal. However, what we can do is find 256 printable, letter-like characters within the first few hundred Unicode code points and use them as an encoding of the 256 possible bytes. Continuing with the jQuery example, that might look something like this:
<script src="h:sha1,пՎЦbηúFԱщблMπĒÇճԴցmЩ"></script> <!-- jQuery 1.5.2 -->
See how we can fit the annotation on the same line now? Even with sha256, it’s still a little shorter than the original in hex:
<!-- jQuery 1.5.2 --> <script src="h:sha256,ρKZհνàêþГJEχdKmՌYψիցyԷթνлшъÁÐFДÂ"></script>
Here’s my proposed encoding table:
0 0 1 1 0123456789ABCDEF 0123456789ABCDEF 00 ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP QRSTUVWXYZÞabcde 20 fghijklmnopqrstu vwxyzþ0123456789 40 ÀÈÌÒÙÁÉÍÓÚÂÊÎÔÛÇ ÄËÏÖÜĀĒĪŌŪĂĔĬŎŬÐ 60 àèìòùáéíóúâêîôûç äëïöüāēīōūăĕĭŏŭð 80 αβγδεζηθικλμνξπρ ςστυφχψωϐϑϒϕϖϞϰϱ A0 БГДЖЗИЙЛПФЦЧШЩЪЬ бгджзийлпфцчшщъь C0 ԱԲԳԴԵԶԷԸԹԺԻԽԾԿՀՁ ՂՃՄՅՆՇՈՉՊՋՌՍՎՐՑՒ E0 աբգդեզէըթժիխծկհձ ղճմյնշոչպջռսվրցւ
All of the characters in this table have one- or two-byte encodings in UTF-8. Every punctuation character below U+007F is given special meaning in some context or other, so I didn’t use any of them. This unfortunately does mean that only 62 of the 256 bytes get one-byte encodings, but storage compactness is not the point here, and it’s no worse than hex, anyway. What this gets us is display compactness: a 256-bit hash will occupy exactly 32 columns in your text editor, leaving room for at least a few other things on the same line.
Choosing the characters is a little tricky. A whole lot of the code space below U+07FF is taken up by characters we can’t use for this purpose—composing diacritics, control characters, punctuation, and right-to-left scripts. I didn’t want to use diacritics (even in precomposed form) or pairs of characters that might be visually identical to each other in some (combination of) fonts. Unfortunately, even with the rich well of Cyrillic and Armenian to work with, I wasn’t able to avoid using a bunch of Latin-alphabet diacritics. Someone a little more familiar with the repertoire might be able to do better.