🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <54016@dime.cs.umass.edu> shri@unreal.cs.umass.edu (H.Shrikumar) writes:

   IMHO, Rewriting in any significantly different form, in a different
   language (such as some other formal language) etc. might just consume
   so much effort that it would not not be affordable, unless pooling of
   resources via USENET happens. And that is not easy to organise.

   It takes so much time and effort to just wade thru the stuff, so it
   stands to reason that paraphrasing it in some other tongue would take
   just as much time, and would  have to go thru some years of draft and
   approval to make sure it means the same thing as the original.

The big trouble when reading the specs is working out what the hell the spec
is going on about. Once the ECU drops, it ought to be relatively simple to
write the English translation

   [Note: most CCITT docs are on-line already(one way of the other ;-).]

      I am not aware of any significant diffs (besides a small one about
   object ids, and the EXTENSIONS macro) between ISO and CCITT versions
   of BER. Would not X.208, X.209 do very well ?

Of course, there are no CCITT standards available online now. :-) However,
even when they were available, the only versions of X.208 and X.209 I saw
were each about 2k long (the guts were completely missing).

Simon

--
-----
Guest account at TMC 	|	Just Another  WAIS Hacker | DOD# 0612