I would suggest that the problems with canonicalization in both cases stem from the fact that it was an afterthought. The original description of DER was a single paragraph. If iso required implementations before a standard was agreed I don't think it would have passed in that form, they would have used the indefinite length encoding for structures.
Xml canonicalization went sour after people started to use namespace prefixed data. This caused the namespace scheme which is poorly designed to cross over into the data space.
I would suggest that the best approach for data encoding today would be to make use of the xml infoset but think twice about using the xml encoding.
-----Original Message-----
From: Linn, John [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wed Jun 07 05:19:44 2006
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Schema languages for XML (Was: Best practice for data encoding?
I'll concur wrt the generality, flexibility, and power of XML as a data
encoding. Considering comments on the ancestor thread, though, I'll
also observe that the generality and flexibility are Not Your Friends if
situations require encodings to be distinguished. The processing rules
in X.690 that define DER relative to BER are expressed there within
three pages (admittedly, excluding the cross-ref to X.680 for tag
ordering); even though they may imply underlying complexity in
implementation, their complexity in specification and concept seems
vastly simpler than the issues that arise with XML canonicalization.
--jl
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:51 AM
To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Schema languages for XML (Was: Best practice for data encoding?
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:50:22AM -0700,
Hallam-Baker, Phillip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
a message of 42 lines which said:
> At this point XML is not a bad choice for data encoding.
+1
> The problem in XML is that XML Schema was botched and in particular
> namespaces and composition are botched. I think this could be fixed,
> perhaps.
There are other schema languages than the bloated W3C Schema. The most
common is RelaxNG (http://www.relaxng.org/).
In the IETF land, while RFC 3730 and 3981 unfortunately use W3C
Schema, RFC 4287 uses RelaxNG.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
