Migration to COFF, methinks
On 30/01/2021 18:20, John Cowan wrote:
Those were just examples. The hard part is parsing
especially if you're writing in C and don't know about yacc and lex.Â
That code tends to be horribly buggy.
True but tools such as the commercial ASN.1
-> C translators are fairly
good and even asn1c has come a long way in the past few decades.
But unless you need to support PER (which outright requires the
schema) or unless you are trying to map ASN.1 compound objects to C
structs or the equivalent, you can just process the whole thing in the
same way you would JSON, except that it's binary and there are more
types. Easy-peasy, especially in a dynamically typed language.
Once there was a person on the xml-dev mailing list who kept repeating
himself, insisting on the superiority of ASN.1 to XML. Finally I told
him privately that his emails could be encoded in PER by using 0x01 to
represent him (as the value of the author field) and allowing the
recipients to reconstruct the message from that! He took it in good part.
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan
<http://vrici.lojban.org/%7Ecowan> cowan(a)ccil.org <mailto:email@example.com>
Don't be so humble. You're not that great.
On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 10:52 PM Richard Salz <rich.salz(a)gmail.com
PER is not the reason for the hatred of ASN.1, it's more that the
specs were created by a pay-to-play organization that fought
against TCP/IP, the specs were not freely available for long
years, BER was too flexible, and the DER rules were almost too
hard to get right. Just a terse summary because this is probably
off-topic for TUHS.