Robin Berjon wrote:
> 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.
Not quite. ASN.1 is a schema language for XML, yet multiple concrete
syntaxes exist for it.
> 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!
Not at all. While it is possible in theory to create an application
that uses all of BER, PER, DER, XML, etc., with very rare exceptions
applications use just one of these. Even in the case where one is using
an ASN.1 tool that supports all these encoding rules, an application would
select only those libraries that are needed.
---
By the way, LWER, OER and SER are not standard encoding rules of ASN.1.
LWER was a proposal from about a decade ago that was withdrawn by the
submitter before being progressed. OER was created in the automotive
community but did not catch on. This is the first that I am hearing
about SER.
Bancroft
