Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
[duh, finger slipped] On Monday, Nov 3, 2003, at 14:08 America/Detroit, John Larmouth wrote: > Suggestions for an ASN.2 that is a cut-down, basic, ASN.1 abound. But > the problem is that for every feature you look at, there are real > specicifications out there that use it! > > Also, please distinguish the ASN.1 notation from the encoding rules. > This is a one to many mapping. Please note that I am just playing with the SGML analogy here; I don't pretend to know enough about ASN.1 to make a substantive contribution. I would simply note that many of these good points about the pains that a subset of the technology would cause the current users were made by SGML advocates when XML was being debated. In retrospect, they seem to be vastly outweighed by the benefits that the refactoring brought to all. I'd also note that the slightly desperate tone of some of the early posts in this thread remind me of SGML advocates in the '90s, who could see the benefits that standardized markup could bring and couldn't believe why the world didn't realize them. The world began to realize once this once the core specs were simple enough for ordinary mortals (and tool developers) to work with.
|
