[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Microsoft FUD on binary XML...
I did hear about it in the eighties and very early nineties. The ODA War was a separate conflict but quite noisy in CALS. The ASN.1 mentions were ISO related. It happened but SGML got the upper hand in CALS and I never paid much attention to it after that. One problem of ASN.1 was the customer: we were mostly in the technical writing shops and the ASN.1 standards were over the heads of people who already found SGML to be 'too hard', so I think the discussion stayed mainly in the standard groups and didn't penetrate far into the customer base. That made is a hard sale. History and all. Not terribly relevant to this discussion. len From: Joe English [mailto:jenglish@f...] This "SGML vs ASN.1 conflict" has been mentioned several times in this thread, but before now I'd never heard of it. What was this supposed conflict all about? Any references? (As far as I knew, the big fight was "SGML vs ODA". ASN.1 never entered into it except insofar as ODA was an application of ASN.1. All that was before my time though, ODA was long-dead by the time I got into SGML.) As an aside, I recently noticed something interesting buried deep in the SGML handbook: a reference to ISO 9069 (Full title: ISO 9069:1988 Information processing -- SGML support facilities -- SGML Document Interchange Format (SDIF)), which defines an ASN.1 encoding for SGML document interchange. This seems to be the converse of the XER -- SGML encoded as ASN.1 instead of ASN.1 encoded as (SG|X)ML. Don't know if anyone ever used it.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|