RE: [xml-dev] Results of Open XML balloting at INCITS

["Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>]

Again, Jim, the problem is the mesh is the same size regardless of who casts
the net.   Controversy is easily created.   Again, if we had shot down XSD
and Namespaces based on that, we'd have a different toolkit today, but that
is all.   If there is only two ISO document formats, things won't be very
different IMO.  A one format system isn't a very good one.

I don't work for either company.  I am a tool user currently leading a team
using ASP 2.0.  My blog is the place to go to read my opinions not because
they are controversial but because they reflect my frustrations with the
current builds of tools in a fast track project.  It comes down to the use
from the local perspective.  

My question to the national reps would be what happens to my production
processes if this passes or fails.   That seemed to be what Massachusetts
finally asked and the answer was the impact of having a coupling of policies
where one could only use standards and the fact of a very substantial
majority of documents being of MS types was economic and mostly bad.  It
would seem to be clearly in the interest of American economics that the US
vote for OOXML.  

The interests of the actual voting parties who are NOT MS competitors (that
bit I understand: business) trouble me.   Why DoD would vote against it and
HLS would vote for it (disregard NIST: they don't seem to have a policy that
is economic) is strange.  Someone inside the firewall should be looking into
that and asking questions.

len


From: Jim Melton [mailto:jim.melton@acm.org] 
 
Len,

Mike's point is that the *fast-track* process is not the same as the 
normal standards development process.  Of course, there is 
controversy in standards development, and that's often a path towards 
standards' improvement (but also a path towards uselessness just to 
reach a compromise).

But the fast-track process was explicitly designed to take 
specifications that have become standards in some other way, either 
through another (semi-) formal organization or through careful 
specification and widespread use, and turn them into ISO 
standards.  But, as Mike said, that is intended only for standards 
that are without major controversy.

The specification being discussed has been controversial -- not 
manufactured, but very real -- from the beginning.  I could go into 
the reasons for the controversy (from my viewpoint, at least), but 
that's not the point of this message.  The level of controversy 
involved is, IMHO, sufficient that the fast-track process should be 
cancelled and the specification submitted to an ISO/IEC JTC1 
Subcommittee for standardization through the normal process.  That 
might take a bit longer, but would ensure that a consensus is 
reached.  Of course, we know that's not going to happen, because the 
author of the spec under discussion would refuse any compromises or 
even to allow another (dissenting) voice to be heard.

I also agree with Mike that the USA decision (or discussion) will 
have much influence on other National Bodies' votes.

Hope this helps,
    Jim

P.S., Full disclosure: I work for Oracle Corp., which is one of the 
USA participants opposed to the USA voting "yes" on this ballot.