That might have happened had there been some free high-quality ASN.1 software, instead of slow buggy parsers that cost $50K to license. It’s always seemed to me that one reason XML took off so fast is that there were fast robust open-source parsers in C and Java before the spec was even finalized.
But we digress... -T On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Bob Wyman <b...@wyman.us> wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Stephen Farrell > <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 04/20/2012 03:40 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: >> > >> > Why not MUST ASN.1 while you're at it? JSON has won in case >> > you'all haven't noticed it. >> >> Well, I also remember when XML won over ASN.1, or >> was that some RPC thing? > > Of course, long before "XML won over ASN.1" ASN.1 won over XML's > predecessor; SGML. Back in the early to mid-80's, when we were defining the > ISO X.4xx and X.5xx standards, the IBM and Unix crowds were pushing SGML as > the alternative to the binary encodings of ASN.1. But, Digital and the > Telcos pushed for the binary encodings and won. > > These days, XML is just another encoding for ASN.1 since ASN.1 finally > defined the XML Encoding Rules (XER) a few years back. > > If we had agreed on ASN.1 years ago, we wouldn't be having these encoding > format debates every few years. ASN.1 is an "Abstract Syntax Notation" that > can be mapped to a large number of encoding rules. If we were using ASN.1, > what we would do is define the "schema" or syntax for data abstractly and > then specify the actual encoding as a secondary issue. Given that one > encoding can be translated to another, implementations would be free to use > whatever encoding was most convenient or appropriate for them. But, that > would be a different universe than the one we live in today. > >> Seems like a new format wins >> about every five years or so, once the last winner >> gets enough crap added. (JSON pointer seems like the >> start of a nice slippery slope to me.) >> >> I've no opinion as to what should be MTI here however, >> just a side comment. >> >> S >> >> > >> > Mike >> > _______________________________________________ >> > apps-discuss mailing list >> > apps-disc...@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> apps-discuss mailing list >> apps-disc...@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-disc...@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > _______________________________________________ OAuth mailing list OAuth@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
