Re: [Rfid] XML vs. Text vs. Binary

margaret - apologies, for not quoting from your email, but i think  
the issues i raised in my original reply remain untouched, or perhaps  
are now amplified by your reply.

the problem is agreeing on a subset is that we now have to design/ 
write/debug/use an entirely different set of libraries than the  
"standard" ones. it takes both hands to count the number of different  
encoding rules that have been defined/implemented for use with ASN.1  
over the years. none of them achieved anywhere near the usage of the  
original BER, which was the thing that folks were complaining about  
to begin with.

in other words, the compromise becomes more complicated than either  
purist extreme; it  looks like one of those little white lies one  
tells in polite company that, over the course of the comversation,  
have to become increasingly more complex so as to avoid discovery  
through contradiction or non-sequitor.

this brings us back full circle: as soon as you have any level of  
nesting, human type-in becomes problematic. as soon as you decide  
that human type-in isn't mandatory, it is trivial to include a  
standard library to do the heavy lifting while the humans invoke the  
tool using textual commands.

in other words, from where i sit, XML, cXML, etc., enjoy all the  
drawbacks of both purist approaches.

/mtr

_______________________________________________
Rfid mailing list
Rfid@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rfid