From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <7ebe705b83452f6e8ab6789c09cb35f2@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: ASN.1 (Was: [9fans] More 'Sam I am')
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 08:04:42 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <0a40e57b4fa1fc9cd7020b2d240214d6@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fb7dd0be-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> isn't this the "i don't trust new software" argument resurrected?
> let's all install V7 from mag tape on our pdp-11s. ;-)
> 
> sorry. i couldn't resist.

You're welcome, but I think you're off the mark.  X.680 is less than
100 pages and is written in that peculiar jargon that CCITT/ITU-T have
evolved to make sure that the real niggly faults are well hidden where
they can only be discovered in the most painful fashion.

Perhaps it is seriously flawed, but I have only a single paper by Carl
Ellison entitled ASN.1 Misuse (September 15, 1995) to back that
argument:

	"The ASN.1 standard (Abstract Syntax Notation 1) is
	proliferating, in spite of cries of anguish by computer
	professionals who are faced with implementing to those
	standards.  The standard is flawed.  Some of those flaws come
	from its complexity and ambiguity - a product most likely of
	having started down the wrong path and been subject to
	corrections by various interested parties along the way.  It
	has acquired various warts and is apparently the result of a
	committee effort.  Other flaws come from its misuse, and those
	are the one addressed in this paper."

I note I'm missing pages 5 to 6 (of 6 :-).  Thing is, XML is not 100
pages long, is nothing like less "complex or ambiguous" and is still
work in progress.  How much can one add to such a beast before its
camel back breaks?

And my question remains: "What is a better option for the conveying of
platform-independent data than ASN.1 or XML?"

++L