- From: Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>
- Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 15:51:42 -0400
- To: zig <www-zig@w3.org>
- CC: Sebastian Hammer <quinn@indexdata.dk>
Sebastian Hammer wrote: > >recordSyntax = XML or SUTRS > > This target appears to use an invalid encoding for XML records -- they come > back as a BER-encoded datatype, whereas I am pretty sure that the proper > way to represent XML is as an "Octet-aligned" type in the EXTERNAL. The issue is with XML, not sutrs? In other words, sutrs come as single-ASN1-type and that's ok? > Ray, we looked around a bit but had a hard time finding a hard statement to > this effect on the Maintenance agency site, or indeed in the record syntax > list. There is no recorded agreement on this. We were never able to come to agreement. (There was a draft agreement, I've looked everywhere and can't find it, and unfortunately I don't remember exactly what it was.The list archive earlier than 2000 has been lost.) However it's worth trying again, as I think there is a good chance that the reasons we couldn't agree no longer apply (i.e. the "disagreers" might all be gone). If we distinguish syntaxes that are described in ASN.1 (e.g. sutrs, grs-1) from those that aren't (e.g. xml and all the marc sytntaxes) it shouldn't be too difficult to reach an agreement to use octet aligned for the latter. --Ray
Received on Friday, 4 October 2002 15:50:23 UTC