• To: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
• Subject: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 14:21:27 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <200310032122.01031.miles@m...>
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EE03F9ED55@h...> <200310032049.29000.miles@m...> <E1A5Vo4-0002wr-00@canteen> <200310032122.01031.miles@m...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

Miles Sabin wrote:

> Depends how you look at it. ASN.1 has a long and relatively successful 
> history of use directly in network protocol elements. XML has a (not 
> quite so long) history as passive protocol _payload_, but it's use 
> directly in network protocol elements is comparatively novel with 
> XML-RPC or SOAP/WSDL/WS-CHOR or XMPP.
> 
> So who's proposing the change? Maybe the burden of proof lies with 
> ASN.1's detractors?

Questions of quality of the underlying protocol aside, XML has a huge 
lead in terms of the number range of available tools. -Tim

• References:
  • RE: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>
  • Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: Tyler Close <tyler@w...>
  • Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
    • From: Miles Sabin <miles@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Next by Date: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Previous by thread: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Next by thread: Re: Fwd: [e-lang] Protocol implementation errors
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread