[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Nov 19, 2003, at 7:12 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
>
> Hopefully, you'll accept that ASN.1 can be just as useful in
> the "no-schema" case as it is in the "schema-aware" case. Given that
> we already have available to us a standardized, mature, widely used
> method of binary encoding, I personally can't see the justification
> for pursuing the definition of a new binary encoding. What we should
> have is:
Thanks for the clarification. I had missed the subtlety about the
schema for no-schema encodings :-) I agree that's not a serious
limitation.
>
> We don't need another binary encoding, at most, what we need
> is agreement on what the ASN.1 schema for a "no-schema" binary
> encoding would look like.
>
Of course, what really matters is not whether some of these ideas such
as Sonowskis can be expressed in ASN.1, but whether leveraging ASN.1
(or any other "binary" approach) gives enough real performance benefit
to be worth the overhead of more than one standard XML serialization.
That remains to be seen, I guess if the W3C group gets going they will
be collecting such data.
But I really appreciate the efforts of you ASN.1-knowledgeable people
to clarify this stuff.
|
