• Subject: Re: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@c...>
• Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:50:13 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52570E05@R...>
• References: <0E36FD96D96FCA4AA8E8F2D199320E52570E05@R...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3

Joshua Allen wrote:

> ...  But I can honestly
> say I have not seen a single legitimate customer scenario where they
> wanted ASN.1 and XML to work better together.  Your experience may
> differ...
> 

One area I have seen is various national standards relating to surface 
transportation - they used asn.1 as a schema language, but now want to 
use xml for the actual messages while sticking with the asn.1 for 
schemas, because the existing versions already used it.  Consequently, 
we (Mitretek Systems) developed our own asn.1 -> xml schema mapping 
before the one that came from the asn.1 folks was ready (ours was not a 
complete mapping for any arbitrary asn.1, but nicely adequate for the 
job at hand).

Cheers,

Tom P

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• References:
  • RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by Date: Updating document with SAX
• Previous by thread: RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Next by thread: RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread