Lists Home |
Date Index |
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. This seems to
> be the route that SUN is taking in their sponsorship of the X.695
> effort to provide support for Web Services in the ASN.1
> specifications. Instead of proposing some new standard or trying to
> base "Fast Web Services" on their own, proprietary, Java-oriented
> encodings, they are arguing for adoption of the ancient, IPR-free, but
> proven encodings that were generated in the ASN.1 world.
When i started researching this area i was looking for existing proven
technology that was not IPR-encumbered. ASN.1 was a good match (infact
it was the only one that matched the requirements i was looking for) and
there was standards work making good progress to support W3C XML Schema
(X.694) and XML encoding (X.693), which have now been finalized.
This meant we (Sun) did not need to invent a new encoding.
| ? + ? = To question