2 added 72 characters in body
source | link

There are probably to main reasons why ASN.1 appears to be used so little compared to XML/JSON.

  1. Contrary to XML (and JSON), ASN.1 is not a data interchange format, but ratherprimarily a language to define what the exchanged data means (plus a whole set of ways to encode that data). As sucha data definition language, ASN.1 is much more comparable to XML Schema Definitions or DTD's (Document Type Definitions). As there are a multitude of ways (both formal and informal) to define the meaning of a data interchange message, but fewer actual data interchange formats in common use, you are more likely to encounter a specific format than you are to encounter one of the formal definition methods.

  2. As noted, ASN.1 is usually used in combination with binary interchange formats. This means that if you work in an environment that deals primarily with human-readable formats (like many of the internet protocols), you are unlikely to encounter ASN.1 definitions for the data interchange. On the other hand, if you work in an environment that traditionally uses pure binary protocols, you might be much more familiar with ASN.1 notations.

In summary, The apparent popularity of XML/JSON over ASN.1 is partly due to comparing apples to oranges (interchange format versus definition language) and can be in part explained by cultural (programming) background.

There are probably to main reasons why ASN.1 appears to be used so little compared to XML/JSON.

  1. Contrary to XML (and JSON), ASN.1 is not a data interchange format, but rather a language to define what the exchanged data means. As such, ASN.1 is much more comparable to XML Schema Definitions or DTD's (Document Type Definitions). As there are a multitude of ways (both formal and informal) to define the meaning of a data interchange message, but fewer actual data interchange formats in common use, you are more likely to encounter a specific format than you are to encounter one of the formal definition methods.

  2. As noted, ASN.1 is usually used in combination with binary interchange formats. This means that if you work in an environment that deals primarily with human-readable formats (like many of the internet protocols), you are unlikely to encounter ASN.1 definitions for the data interchange. On the other hand, if you work in an environment that traditionally uses pure binary protocols, you might be much more familiar with ASN.1 notations.

In summary, The apparent popularity of XML/JSON over ASN.1 is partly due to comparing apples to oranges (interchange format versus definition language) and can be in part explained by cultural (programming) background.

There are probably to main reasons why ASN.1 appears to be used so little compared to XML/JSON.

  1. Contrary to XML (and JSON), ASN.1 is not a data interchange format, but primarily a language to define what the exchanged data means (plus a whole set of ways to encode that data). As a data definition language, ASN.1 is much more comparable to XML Schema Definitions or DTD's (Document Type Definitions). As there are a multitude of ways (both formal and informal) to define the meaning of a data interchange message, but fewer actual data interchange formats in common use, you are more likely to encounter a specific format than you are to encounter one of the formal definition methods.

  2. As noted, ASN.1 is usually used in combination with binary interchange formats. This means that if you work in an environment that deals primarily with human-readable formats (like many of the internet protocols), you are unlikely to encounter ASN.1 definitions for the data interchange. On the other hand, if you work in an environment that traditionally uses pure binary protocols, you might be much more familiar with ASN.1 notations.

In summary, The apparent popularity of XML/JSON over ASN.1 is partly due to comparing apples to oranges (interchange format versus definition language) and can be in part explained by cultural (programming) background.

1
source | link

There are probably to main reasons why ASN.1 appears to be used so little compared to XML/JSON.

  1. Contrary to XML (and JSON), ASN.1 is not a data interchange format, but rather a language to define what the exchanged data means. As such, ASN.1 is much more comparable to XML Schema Definitions or DTD's (Document Type Definitions). As there are a multitude of ways (both formal and informal) to define the meaning of a data interchange message, but fewer actual data interchange formats in common use, you are more likely to encounter a specific format than you are to encounter one of the formal definition methods.

  2. As noted, ASN.1 is usually used in combination with binary interchange formats. This means that if you work in an environment that deals primarily with human-readable formats (like many of the internet protocols), you are unlikely to encounter ASN.1 definitions for the data interchange. On the other hand, if you work in an environment that traditionally uses pure binary protocols, you might be much more familiar with ASN.1 notations.

In summary, The apparent popularity of XML/JSON over ASN.1 is partly due to comparing apples to oranges (interchange format versus definition language) and can be in part explained by cultural (programming) background.