• To: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>
• Subject: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
• Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:42:27 -0700
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <407957D5.1060900@l...>
• References: <000001c41f52$6550ccf0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV> <407890B4.10309@s...> <407957D5.1060900@l...>
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312

Stephen D. Williams wrote:

>ASN.1 is totally unsuitable for most tasks.  It is a 'one size fits a 
>few' solution.
>
>  
>
Can you give some details for why you believe this, Stephen? I haven't 
looked at ASN.1 in detail, so I've curious as to why people have the 
strongly-held opinions both ways on using ASN.1 for XML documen 
representations.

  - Dennis

-- 
Dennis M. Sosnoski
Enterprise Java, XML, and Web Services
Training and Consulting
http://www.sosnoski.com
Redmond, WA  425.885.7197

• References:
  • RE: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: Dennis Sosnoski <dms@s...>
  • Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
    • From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw@l...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by Date: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Previous by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Next by thread: Re: XML Binary Characterization WG public list available
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread