[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
tpassin@comcast.net wrote:
> According to some things I have read or been told, ASN.1 was
> originally developed for people - people communication, to let them
> explain schemas to each other. Probably because of that, it turned
> out to be a bear to parse. I do not know if the residue of this
> still plays a role, but full ASN.1 has an awful lot of syntax
> features.
Yes, ASN.1 became quite hard to parse at some point, notably when they
added macros that could be used before they were defined and had no
termination marker -- it was impossible to get right. But I was led to
believe that some of the later edits to the specs tried to make things a
bit easier.
> Maybe it is like XML Schema - no one has yet implemented every
> feature correctly (or have they by now?).
Well that's a cause for concern, if no one has implemented XML Schema
correctly, and no open source implementation of ASN.1 exists, then X.694
which bridges both worlds will be unavailable to those of us who can't
shell out the cash :/
> I think that some of the sophisticated encodings like PER are very
> hard to get right and complete, too (I have never looked into these
> encodings, so have no first-hand experience here).
I don't think PER qualifies as "very hard", but yes it certainly
qualifies as much harder than BER.
--
Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488
|
