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 ]

I did hear about it in the eighties and very early 
nineties.  The ODA War was a separate conflict but 
quite noisy in CALS.  The ASN.1 mentions were ISO 
related.  It happened but SGML got the upper hand 
in CALS and I never paid much attention to it after 
that.  One problem of ASN.1 was the customer:  we 
were mostly in the technical writing shops and the 
ASN.1 standards were over the heads of people who 
already found SGML to be 'too hard', so I think the 
discussion stayed mainly in the standard groups and 
didn't penetrate far into the customer base.  That 
made is a hard sale.

History and all.  Not terribly relevant to this 


From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@flightlab.com]

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.


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

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