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

["G. Ken Holman" <gkholman@CraneSoftwrights.com>]

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@CraneSoftwrights.com
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