• To: Alessandro Triglia <sandro@m...>
• Subject: Re: RE: Schema vs Schema-free
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:45:48 -0400
• Cc: 'xml-dev' <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <005601c42256$753f6fc0$0e00a8c0@aldebaran>
• References: <005601c42256$753f6fc0$0e00a8c0@aldebaran>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030507

> The restriction of ASN.1 is that all parties *must* agree on a set of type
> definitions.

Yup.  And in exchange, it gets a lot for that.

Folks here are saying that this requirement doesn't have to be true in 
order to use XML effectively.

> I have yet to hear a convincing argument that ASN.1 is inherently less
> interoperable than XML.  Historical accidents, such as buggy software, are
> not relevant.

I agree with you.  My concern comes when the two are intermixed.

	/r$

Disclaimer:  My boss made me sign up for the W3C "binary xml" WG.

-- 
Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology                           http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway   http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview  http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: RE: Schema vs Schema-free
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)

• References:
  • RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free
    • From: "Alessandro Triglia" <sandro@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RE: Why a "general" solution? (was: RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available e)
• Next by Date: Re: xml editors
• Previous by thread: RE: RE: Schema vs Schema-free
• Next by thread: Re: RE: Schema vs Schema-free
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread