[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] SC34 WG6 meeting
Doug, I don't normally comment on the by-play between vendors and it isn't my plan to make it a practice now. I did not attend the SC 34 WG6 meetings so will leave comments on what was or wasn't said to those who did attend. I am familiar with the participation of Microsoft in the ODF TC and can say from experience (and the record should anyone care to look at it) that Microsoft has been a valuable and contributing member of the ODF TC. I note that in Windows 7 that WordPad supports ODF as one of its formats. I don't know how else to characterize the inclusion of a format in a product as widely available and used as WordPad as other than as supportive of ODF. I welcome the use of ODF by all parties, open source projects, governments, commercial vendors (yes, there are a few of those still around) and anyone else who needs a robust document format. ODF 1.2, which the TC is working on finishing when it isn't distracted by other issues, promises to be a major step in the development of office formats. (OK, that last statement reflects a personal prejudice. ;-) ) Hope everyone is having a great week! Patrick Doug Mahugh wrote: > > I've read with some concern Rob's latest blog post, here: > http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html. Although > not an official ODF TC document, it comes from the co-chair of the TC > and it's addressing a matter of ODF maintenance, so I expect that many > people will see it as an authoritative source of information about > recent developments in ODF maintenance. > > I’m concerned about this statement in particular, which is essentially > the centerpiece of the post: > > > Some of the nattering nabobs in SC34 (e.g., Alex Brown) are floating > the idea that ODF 1.0 should be withdrawn from ISO, > > > claiming it is not implemented and not relevant. At the recent SC34 > meeting in Paris this view was echoed by a Microsoft > > > participant (one of many) in the meeting, who additionally urged > that a motion to withdraw ODF 1.0 be brought forward > > > at the Stockholm SC34 Plenary in March. > > I was there at the WG6 meeting, and I don't recall this happening, nor > can I find any reference to this in the minutes of the meeting. > > I do recall a discussion of Resolution #3 from the Bellevue SC34 > plenary in September regarding amendment of ODF 1.0 to align it with > ODF 1.1. Although this resolution is never mentioned in Rob’s post, > I’m guessing that this may be the discussion he’s alluding to. > > During that discussion, several participants (all non-Microsoft > delegates from various NBs) expressing their concern about the > apparent lack of progress on OASIS’s response to that resolution. Some > felt that if such an amendment is never delivered then ISO/IEC 26300 > would not reflect actual practice among ODF users, in particular as > regards accessibility issues. The theoretical concept of withdrawal of > ODF 1.0 only came up in a side discussion about what might happen if > the ODF TC never responds to Resolution #3 and ODF 1.2 gets a new IS > number, leaving ISO/IEC 26300 as a historical relic that is not > aligned with existing practice or existing implementations. > > I agree with the way Alex Brown characterized that discussion on his > blog recently > (http://www.adjb.net/post/SC-34-WG-meetings-in-Paris-last-week.aspx): > > > Most significant of all is the work to align the ISO version of ODF > with the current OASIS standard so that ISO/IEC 26300 and > > > ODF 1.1 are technically equivalent. The National Bodies present > reiterated a consensus that this was desirable (better, by far, > > > than withdrawing ISO/IEC 26300 as a defunct standard) and are > looking forward to the amendment project. > > I don't recall any Microsoft employee saying anything at all about > this matter in the WG6 meeting. I listened to the opinions of others, > but didn't express any opinion of my own during this discussion, and I > believe the same was true of the other Microsoft employees present. > Svante, since you were the other ODF TC member present, I'm curious > whether you have any different recollection. And Rob, would you be > willing to share the source of your information? Or name/quote the > “Microsoft participant” you have referred to? > > As it stands, it seems that WG6’s discussion of the status of an SC34 > plenary resolution has been represented by a leader of the OASIS ODF > TC as “Microsoft” urging that a motion to withdraw ODF 1.0 be brought > forward at the Stockholm SC34 Plenary in March. This may be creating a > perception that a particular OASIS ODF TC member is working against > the TC's broad commitment to effective maintenance of ODF, and I think > that’s a misleading and inaccurate characterization of what happened > in the WG6 meeting. > > - Doug > > Doug Mahugh | Lead Standards Professional | Office Interoperability | > 425-707-1182 | blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh <http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh> > -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net 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)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]