[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: OOXML: So what *should* happen now?
That would backload the process by adding more requirements rather than responding to the comments. This would make a difficult task impossible. No good manager allows that in a software project and I will be surprised if ISO members and managers would consider it in the very short time to complete the currently scheduled work. This is a speculative thread unless ISO members can legitimately add burdens to a given standards process. Wouldn't such burdens have delayed ODF for a much longer period? Is it reasonable to expect that to be done to this work item? Why? My perception is that the decision to enable the process closes the decision of whether or not there should be a standard. That decision is made and should not be revisited. Given that, a formal relationship between ODF and OOXML is out of scope for the remainder of the current process. Post process, that becomes an interesting notion for those who want to propose a third standard. Supporting why that is better than having a choice of viable existing standards would be part of the work item for the proposers prior to enabling the process. It seems the least likely outcome in the near term and not part of what should happen now. len From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@r...] 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. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. [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
|