Bj�rn Schneider wrote:
> > Well, I've better correct myself. It is not necessarily an error in the
> > notation, as it defines an ObjectClassFieldType. Here it defines an open
> > type, and as there are no constraints on the type it can be regarded as
> > the old 'ANY'.
> >
> > So you type seems to be translated to:
> > ISO7816DOAttributes ::= CHOICE {
> > indirect ReferencedValue,
> > direct [0] ANY
> > }
>
> Okay; that's how I'd temporarily defined it.
>
> > So I'll still say that there are something 'wrong' with the notation.
>
> Say this to the ISO-Members - they'll be happy :))
By 'wrong' I ment that it is not nice to define it as an open type, that
is not constrained.
It is not invalid! (That was why I corrected myself.)
(Standards are not necessarily free of errors!)
BTW Please, this list is not for tools specific questions or comments.
Best regards
Egon Andersen
--
* Talura ApS * Phone: +45 43 52 50 00 *
* Baldersh�j 24 B * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* DK-2635 Ish�j * http://www.talura.dk *
