[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@geotempo.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:20:58 +0800
Bob Kline wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000, John F. Schlesinger wrote:
> > That raises the question, why is XML better than ASN-1 or BNF?
> >
>
> Let's not say "better"; how about "preferred for some applications"?
>
> 1. Easier to debug.
> 2. More accessible to more common tools.
> 3. Easier to get back on track with garbled transmission.
It is interesting to speculate that the more that XML is hijacked by the
"XML is serialization" crowd, away from its roots as a humanistic (i.e.,
typist-oriented) text-based user interface, the less justification there
is for using XML rather than ASN.1
For example, if there were standard translations defined between DOM
(or even SAX) and ASN.1, perhaps history will show XML as a necessary
but temporary stepping stone. Personally I think that is rubbish, but
it is not out of the question that DOM/SAX may become more fundamental
technologies than XML; if everyone has DOM, why does anyone need XML
rather than a more packed format? (If you see what I mean: please don't
answer this.)
It would be very interesting to hear from ASN.1 folk what the current
pros and cons of ASN.1 versus XML approaches (let us assume XML with
compression and with XML Schemas, to load the dices).
Rick Jelliffe
***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@xml.org&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************
|
