[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
I agree that multiple solutions are appropriate, and, indeed, necessary at this
stage of research and development in this area.
John L
Robin Berjon wrote:
> Bob Wyman wrote:
>
>> Michael Champion wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not exactly clear on the value proposition here, but that's for
>>> the market to sort out.
>>
>>
>> Well, give systems that use ASN.1 at their core and generate
>> XML, all the arguments for "binary XML" can be converted instead into
>> discussions of which of the existing encoding rules should be used
>> (probably PER), rather than consuming the time, energy, and focus that
>> would be required to create yet-another-binary-encoding.
>
>
> Congrats on getting X.694 out of the door, it is an interesting
> specification. That being said, I must admit I am surprised at your
> assumption that simply because ASN.1 produced a binary encoding of XML
> it has successfully solved all the problems that people attempt to solve
> when they turn to alternative encodings for XML.
>
> Given that at the binary infosets workshop there was a considerable
> amount of doubt that any single solution could do the trick for the
> entire needs of the market, I would have expected anyone so sure of
> their results to show up and tell us about it :)
>
--
Prof John Larmouth
Larmouth T&PDS Ltd
(Training and Protocol Development Services Ltd)
1 Blueberry Road
Bowdon j.larmouth@salford.ac.uk
Cheshire WA14 3LS
England
Tel: +44 161 928 1605 Fax: +44 161 928 8069
|
