RE: [xml-dev] OOXML: So what *should* happen now?

[Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>]

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@redhat.com] 
 
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.