- From: Ray denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 11:03:43 -0500
- To: www-zig@w3.org
- CC: SusanDevine@cox.rr.com, pharris@niso.org
Mike Taylor wrote: > How is that ASN.1's fault? I meant to add, in fairness to asn.1, that if we were using xml (for instance) instead of asn.1 I would still plan to treat this as I proposed. However, xml does have a huge advantage in one respect: you can delimit a comment at the beginning and end, as opposed to adding a special string at the beginning of each line. People who haven't written asn.1 might not be able to fully grasp what an enormous burden this is is for an editor. > It's a chunk a raw text which asks nothing > more than to be left alone, ... But that's alot to ask of a publishing system. > .... transcribed unchanged from one format to > the next. .... I think that's an inherrent contradiction. > I suggest addressing the overly intricate and baroque sequence of > conversions that the NISO publishing process seems to require. I simply think text (at least large chunks) that must adhere to strict syntax rules because they are intended to be parsed, such as asn.1 and xml, should be maintained outside of the publishing process. --Ray
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 11:06:22 UTC