Lists Home |
Date Index |
> the application. On the other hand, ASN.1 modules are produced by human
> beings, published in standards or other such, and used by the
> implementers of these standards.
I think that is no different, say, than any of the XML Schema languages.
People concerned with the "verbose" XML serialization should look at DER
or PER for lessons to be learned and avoided.
> ASN.1 with VXER is a powerful XML schema definition language.
Outside of its use as a legacy migration tool, what does it offer to XML
developers that existing schema languages do not have?
> The ITU-T and ISO JTC 1 are also developing a recommendation (X.694)
> which provides a full mapping from XML Schema into ASN.1 + VXER.
That seems silly. XSD->ASN1->XML serialization. Or did I misunderstand?
XSD->ASN1->DER might be interesting.
> The resulting ASN.1 will be describing the same XML
> documents as the original XML Schema, thus allowing the use of tools
> based on either language on any of two communicating endpoints,
Really? So VXER is just an "undo" for the XSD->ASN1 translation?
> Among other things, this allows exploiting the binary
> encoding rules of ASN.1 to save bandwidth and CPU cycles wherever this
> makes sense.
They they're not the same XML document.
I guess I'm confused.