• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@r...>
• To: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
• Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:26:15 -0400

Len Bullard wrote:
> The ISO process should continue as ISO directs.  What *should* be happening
> now is the preparation of the response to the comments if I understand the
> process correctly.  Otherwise, what is the point of having ISO processes? 
>   

ISO process involves making decisions, perhaps based on notions of what 
should happen. Otherwise, what is the point of having ISO processes?

> Is that what you think is the right outcome, Jonathan?
>   

I'm not an ISO standards guy, it would be easier for me to say what 
should happen in a W3C process. I think many of the technical objections 
that have been raised are real and should be addressed by changes in the 
documents. Does ISO fast track process leave room for fully specifying 
the formats, and for using existing standards for date formats, 
graphics, mathematical equations, etc? I really don't think we should 
incorporate new ways to represent complex things like these that are 
already covered by standards just because one vendor does not use those 
standards in their file formats.

Beyond that, I'm concerned about the relationship between ODF and OOXML. 
Ideally, I'd like to see a standard office format created by the people 
who created these two technologies. I don't know whether there is enough 
desire for such a convergence. If not, I'd rather have one standard than 
two for office formats, and I haven't seen a technical explanation that 
tells me why these aren't two standards for the same thing. Microsoft 
says that OOXML is a standard for "enterprise office documents" rather 
than just "office documents". The example they give is generally 
spreadsheet formulas, which could easily be added to ODF, and I believe 
an effort is underway to do just that.

Jonathan

• References:
  • RE: OOXML: So what *should* happen now?
    • From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>