Dave,
On 6/6/2010 7:35 AM, Dave Pawson wrote:
> On 6 June 2010 11:51, Patrick Durusau<> wrote:
>
>
>> What part of Thorsten's email would you draw our attention to?
>>
>> Thorsten wrote (his entire comment):
>>
>>
>>> Surely the work item proposal asks for an_independent_ standard?
>>>
> That's all.
> Current zip isn't (or is doubted to be) 'independent' or OSS
> if you want.
>
>
Thanks for the clarification.
In that sense, the proposal is unclear since it does not specify whether
it intends to:
1) Standardize ZIP itself (PKWare's technology)
2) Standardize some sub-part of ZIP (PKWare's technology)
3) Standardize some compatible sub-part of PKWare's technology but in a
non-infringing way.
Options #1 and #2 raise the question of simply appropriately a vendor's
technology that some standards group thinks should be "independent" or
OSS (Open-Source Software). (Not that "independent" should be confused
with OSS but that is a separate question.)
Option #3 raises the same question as #1 and #2 as a matter of common
courtesy.
All three options raise the issue of whether SC 34 is the competent body
to undertake such work.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
