Lists Home |
Date Index |
Alessandro Triglia wrote:
> Amelia A. Lewis wrote:
>>We believe in unicode and concrete syntax.
> Good. So you don't believe in schemas. That's fine. Just use XML 1.0.
I don't think that that happens to be what Amy said (apologies if I
presume wrong). The fact is that at this point in time any schema
language for XML defines one single concrete syntax. And a fair part of
what the ASN.1 people do not seem to understand is that the XML folks
see that as a *good* thing.
The ASN.1 equivalent of a simple XML parser in terms of universality
would have to properly decode (and likely handle negotiation for) BER,
PER, CER, DER, XER, and probably LWER, OER, and SER. That's a bit of a
behemoth to implement!
There's a lot to say in favour of minimizing the number of concrete
syntaxes, and that's where a lot of the concerns about having *two*
(just two!) universal formats came from at the binary infosets workshop.
Not having two means that there'll be twenty different ones out there;
having two may be harmful to interoperability in that it enforces (as
opposed to just making available) an increase in options. This is a hard
question to decide.
Choice is only technically good when you're the one choosing ;) Or at
least, when you like all the flavours that can be chosen from.
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Scientist, Expway http://expway.com/
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488