OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: [xml-dev] Microsoft FUD on binary XML...

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Bob Wyman wrote:

> 	As far as I can see, there are virtually no differences
> between the XML approach and the ASN.1 approach other than the fact
> that one is human readable and the other requires transformation
> before being human readable.

You must be looking at XML from a very strange angle indeed.
I see hardly anything at all in common between the two.

> 	The truth of the matter is that when this SGML vs ASN.1
> conflict began about 20 years ago, the two sides should have gotten
> together and said: "Let's define SGML encoding rules for ASN.1 to go
> along with BER."

This "SGML vs ASN.1 conflict" has been mentioned several
times in this thread, but before now I'd never heard of it.
What was this supposed conflict all about?  Any references?

(As far as I knew, the big fight was "SGML vs ODA".  ASN.1
never entered into it except insofar as ODA was an application
of ASN.1.  All that was before my time though, ODA was
long-dead by the time I got into SGML.)

As an aside, I recently noticed something interesting
buried deep in the SGML handbook: a reference to ISO 9069
(Full title: ISO 9069:1988 Information processing --
SGML support facilities -- SGML Document Interchange Format
(SDIF)), which defines an ASN.1 encoding for SGML document
interchange.  This seems to be the converse of the XER --
SGML encoded as ASN.1 instead of ASN.1 encoded as (SG|X)ML.
Don't know if anyone ever used it.

--Joe English



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS