Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?

[baos@oss.oss.com (Bancroft Scott)]

"marcus (m.d.) leech" <uunet!bnr.ca!mleech> wrote:

>> > I don't think that TLV is necessarily a bad thing, but certainly ASN.1
>> >   is an elephantine mess.  Consider that one of its EARLY (ca 1988)
>> >   formal specifications is over 400 pages.  Consider the BNF specification
>> >   for ANSI C is 6 pages!  The "standard reference text" for ANSI C is,
>> >   including the BNF and index, 272 pages.
>> 
>> X.208 (ASN:1988) is 48 pages.  How did you arrive at 400+ pages?
>> 
>I was looking at X.209 which granted, isn't just the BNF for ASN.1,
>  but the all the other semantic stuff.  Since such standards are
>  formal documents, I feel justified in my comparison.

X.209 (BER:1988) is 15 pages long.  How did you arrive at 400+ pages?

Bancroft Scott

---

• Prev by Date: Re: going back to stone axes
• Next by Date: Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: SPKI mailing list and BOF at Los Angeles
• Prev by thread: Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?
• Next by thread: Re: encodings: do we need binary at all?
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread