[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS
At 2007-08-13 02:06 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote: >Michael Kay said: > > For one person's summary of other national body responses, see > > > > http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=2007022819130536 > >That is about responses to the contradictions period, which is a different >stage in the process. ISO basically said "No", or rather "None of what you >say is a showstopper that requires extraordinary intervention, these >issues can go on and be addressed by the normal process": the current >ballot produces the big issue list to get resolved. As I understand it, it wasn't ISO that said that but that, per the directives, ISO invited Ecma to make comment on the allegations coming out of contradiction period. Ecma then authored the "not a showstopper" words based on its interpretation of the contradiction comments and ISO dutifully distributed Ecma's words (as it would for any fast track submitter) to the national bodies as the submitter's response to the allegations of contradiction. I do not recall seeing a single ISO/ITTF assessment or official summary of the contradiction allegations or the Ecma disposition of those allegations. I've only seen Ecma documents circulated. The Directives section 13.4 cites in parts "consulting with the proposer of the fast-track document... if the resolution results in no change to the document or if a resolution cannot be reached, the fie month fast-track ballot commences immediately ... JTC 1 shall circulate the comments and the disposition of such comments". I don't remember seeing any ISO/ITTF document stating in effect "none of what is said is a show-stopper". >The other thing to realize is that no means yes. When a nation gives a no >vote, they have to give the technical reasons why not and suggest their >preferred fixes. Not true ... a national body is not obliged to give technical reasons for a no vote. National bodies and other voting members are welcome to vote no with non-technical reasons that have no resolution. Their vote is counted as is all the others. This was confirmed with JTC 1. The comment about technical reasons only was misinformation disseminated at the Seoul plenary meeting of SC 34. I'm posting the following comments with my XML developer hat on and not in any official capacity regarding my standardization responsibilities. As my private opinions on this matter were intentionally outed against my expressed wishes by one of the companies involved, I feel I can now comment openly with my own opinions about this situation. I see ISO/IEC 26300 ODF is an XML vocabulary for office documents. I see DIS 29500 OOXML is an XML vocabulary for office documents. Adding the faerie dust of international standardization does not, in my opinion, add anything to any legacy of existing documents that are already in XML. The legacy and any related prevalence of existing documents is immaterial. Legacy users of OOXML don't gain anything by the specification becoming an international standard. Having already chosen to use XML they get the benefits of longevity and of access using markup-based tools. International standardization doesn't change that. I wish I had thought to say this but a good friend (I haven't got time to get his permission to attribute him) made the astute observation that the phrase "Open XML" is redundant like the phrase "edible food" is. "Office Open XML" is no better than just "Office XML". Existing legacy users of "Office XML" are already getting the benefit of using XML markup and deeming that markup to be an international standard does not add anything at all to their legacy investment. But think of a customer asking a developer to "please create an XML-based expression of this information I have that I would like to maintain in a spreadsheet application, and I don't care about the application but I do care about the data". If there are no standard formats, the choice is muddy. If there are two formats to choose from, a standard format and a proprietary format, the choice is clear. If there are two standardized formats, the choice is muddy again. International standards development processes exist to accommodate such contradictions: when an existing standard does not meet identified user requirements satisfied by a specification that would be in contradiction, the maintenance of the specification should address the user requirements following an established process. Therefore, to move forward the community should focus on new developments and what choices in standardization there are when a developer creates a new project or a vendor creates a new tool or a customer creates a new need. There should be a clear choice to move forward and not a confusing choice to move forward. I think there should only be one internationally-standardized XML vocabulary for office documents and that the existing one should be augmented to address identified user requirements brought to the maintenance process through proper channels. The fast track process is not a standards development process but a ratification process and if it isn't clear that the specification can be ratified easily and without contradiction then the user requirements addressed by the fast track should have gone through a traditional open standards development process. And OOXML still has a chance to do so, just in my opinion not as an ISO fast track. I don't have anything against OOXML as a vendor's choice format, or even Ecma's choice of format for its member organizations. My opinion about how easy or not easy it is to work with OOXML is not relevant. The OOXML developers worked hard to produce an XML vocabulary that meets their needs and they have valuable input to the development process as a result. I'm focused here on process and the impact of having more than one international standard when there is an opportunity to prevent having more than one by going through development processes and not fast track processes. I hope this is considered helpful. . . . . . . . . . . . . Ken (speaking only for myself) -- Upcoming public training: XSLT/XSL-FO Sep 10, UBL/code lists Oct 1 World-wide corporate, govt. & user group XML, XSL and UBL training RSS feeds: publicly-available developer resources and training G. Ken Holman mailto:gkholman@C... Crane Softwrights Ltd. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/ Box 266, Kars, Ontario CANADA K0A-2E0 +1(613)489-0999 (F:-0995) Male Cancer Awareness Jul'07 http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/x/bc Legal business disclaimers: http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/legal
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|