Core lexical syntax
Lassi Kortela
(25 Sep 2019 10:15 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 14:09 UTC)
|
||
Machines vs humans
Lassi Kortela
(25 Sep 2019 14:25 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
Alaric Snell-Pym
(25 Sep 2019 15:44 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 14:13 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 19:18 UTC)
|
||
Mechanism vs policy
Lassi Kortela
(25 Sep 2019 19:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Arthur A. Gleckler
(25 Sep 2019 21:17 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 07:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
John Cowan
(25 Sep 2019 22:25 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Arthur A. Gleckler
(26 Sep 2019 01:34 UTC)
|
||
Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 08:23 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 08:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 02:38 UTC)
|
||
ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 14:56 UTC)
|
||
Re: ASN.1 branding
Alaric Snell-Pym
(27 Sep 2019 15:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: ASN.1 branding Lassi Kortela (27 Sep 2019 18:54 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 01:57 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 16:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 17:37 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 18:28 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 18:39 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 18:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: Limits, symbols and bytevectors, ASN.1 branding
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 21:19 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 08:45 UTC)
|
||
Implementation limits
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 08:57 UTC)
|
||
Re: Implementation limits
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 09:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: Implementation limits
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 09:51 UTC)
|
||
Meaning of the word "format"
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 10:31 UTC)
|
||
Stacking it all up
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 11:05 UTC)
|
||
Brief spec-writing exercise
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 11:46 UTC)
|
||
Re: Brief spec-writing exercise
John Cowan
(26 Sep 2019 15:45 UTC)
|
||
Standards vs specifications
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 21:24 UTC)
|
||
Re: Standards vs specifications
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 04:29 UTC)
|
||
Re: Standards vs specifications
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 13:47 UTC)
|
||
Re: Standards vs specifications
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 14:53 UTC)
|
||
Re: Meaning of the word "format"
John Cowan
(26 Sep 2019 20:59 UTC)
|
||
Re: Meaning of the word "format"
Lassi Kortela
(26 Sep 2019 21:09 UTC)
|
||
Re: Meaning of the word "format"
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 02:44 UTC)
|
||
Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
Lassi Kortela
(27 Sep 2019 13:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 14:22 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
Alaric Snell-Pym
(27 Sep 2019 15:02 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Sep 2019 15:26 UTC)
|
||
(missing)
|
||
Fwd: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 16:40 UTC)
|
||
Re: Fwd: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
Alaric Snell-Pym
(27 Sep 2019 16:51 UTC)
|
||
Re: Fwd: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 17:18 UTC)
|
||
Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
hga@xxxxxx
(27 Sep 2019 16:58 UTC)
|
||
Re: Length bytes and lookahead in ASN.1
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 17:21 UTC)
|
||
Re: Mechanism vs policy
John Cowan
(27 Sep 2019 03:52 UTC)
|
||
Re: Core lexical syntax
Alaric Snell-Pym
(26 Sep 2019 08:36 UTC)
|
> *dons pedant hat* As Shakespeare said, pedantry is the soul of wit :) > ASN stands for Abstract Syntax Notation, and refers to the "schema > language" used to define types. ASN.1 looks like: > > FooProtocol DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN > > FooQuestion ::= SEQUENCE { > trackingNumber INTEGER, > question IA5String > } > > FooAnswer ::= SEQUENCE { > questionNumber INTEGER, > answer BOOLEAN > } > > END > > Actual *values* encoded by an Encoding Rules aren't ASN.1, so calling > them "Basic ASN.1" et al is misleading! However, it WOULD be correct to > call the "encoding rules" CONCERETE syntax notations, so "Basic CSN.1" > could be legit :-) That's even more awesome :D I'm guessing it's "Abstract Syntax Notation" as in "notation for abstract syntax". It can't be the other way around; notation has to be concrete by definition. And abstract syntax is presumably the stuff we store in abstract syntax trees (AST). I presume the Encoding Rules are the concrete syntaxes, and the notation you show above is another concrete notation (i.e. concrete syntax) for describing the abstract syntax. In other words, a meta-syntax -- or is there a distinction between an abstract syntax schema and a meta-syntax? lol. So presumably some people were deliberating between calling it "meta-syntax" and "abstract syntax notation" and concluded that the latter is clearer. Or maybe "meta-syntax" was already taken. And since the abstract syntax is of limited use by itself, they added some concrete syntaxes (binary and text) after the fact. And called them "Encoding Rules" instead of "format". I guess most programmers would call that thing a "schema". A schema for JSON would be "JSON schema"; a schema for XML would be "XML schema". A Schema that can cover several formats would be simply "Schema". If ISO is the biggest standards organization involved, it could be "ISO Schema", though there could be some politics that prevent that. ISO Schema would sound simple and authoritative. > Those kinds of standards (ASN.1 is a joint ITU-T / ISO standard) are > made in committee rooms by delegates sent from a mixture of national > standards bodies (that was my route, I as sent by the British Standards > Institute) and industrial stakeholders (big users of ASN.1 such as > telcos that do interesting protocol R&D using ASN.1 rather than just > buying off the shelf, makers of telco equipment that do similar, major > ASN.1 tool vendors, etc). > > The result is driven by a mixture of individual goals, from my limited > observations: > > 1. Actually build some technology to do something! > 2. Make sure this thing we've already built (perhaps as a secret > prototype) will meet the standard with the minimum of work so we can get > ahead in the market. > 3. Pushing your favourite ideology, ranging from technical ("big > endian!") to actually political ("telecommunication networks should be > tightly controlled by the Party in order to stamp out dissent!") > 4. Trying to stab your competitor in the back > 5. Trying to stab an individual you have a grudge against in the back > > ...I didn't see much concern about *marketing* per se; most of these > standards are part of suites that will be forced on people by sheer > legislative power. The ostensible remit was to make the standards that > the telecoms networks of the world would use to interoperate between > national telecom networks. Anybody who wanted to take part in the phone > network had to follow the standards... That's very interesting and matches many descriptions of the nature of those organizations and processes. Thank you for relating it. You are a brave soul. I hope you were well compensated.