[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] SC34 Ballot N1414 "New Work Item Proposal on DocumentPackaging"
Thorsten Behrens <tbehrens@novell.com> wrote on 06/04/2010 04:21:37 PM: > > you wrote: > > I'm not saying that there are not interesting things that could be > > standardized here. For example, it might be nice to have a standard URL > > protocol for ZIP, or standard fragment schema for URL addressing of ZIP > > items, etc. Or any other conventions that are effectively a layer between > > core ZIP's compression/packaging specification and what ODF/OOXML/EPUB > > use. But including the core ZIP packaging/compression in the same > > standard is a real bad idea, IMHO. As I said before, it is like > > specifying Unicode and XML in the same standard. Or XML and ODF in the > > same standard. > > > Surely the work item proposal asks for an _independent_ standard? Or > am I getting you wrong here? > > I otherwise tend to agree with Dennis, there's merit to have > properly standardized what we're referencing, instead of reliance on > single-vendor goodwill ... > > Cheers, > My view is that the benefits of standardization come from the process of standardization, not merely by giving the stamp of "standard" to a specification. The rigor of a committee process, the lengthy review, the implementation experience -- all this improves the specification so by the time it is a standard it is of improved quality and more suitable for broad use. Calling something a standard does not improve it. But the standardization activity may improve it. However, standardization is not the only activity that can be used to improve a specification. I'd argue it is one of the most efficient ways of doing it, but I would not claim that standardization has some magical exclusive ability to improve technical specification. In the ZIP case I'd assert they have achieved a level of maturity that equals or exceeds your typical ISO standard. Remember, the ZIP Application Note has been around since 1989. It is older than OASIS. It is older than the W3C. I suspect it is older than SC34. At this point he tangible benefit of standardizing it seems minuscule at this point. And note that there is nothing irregular about an ISO standard using external specifications as normative references. See JTC1 Directives, Annex N. There is a procedure for JTC1 to review and approve the use of external specifications, what are called "Referenced Specifications". Since we are currently referencing ZIP in ODF 1.2, we'll likely trigger the Annex N provisions when we submit ODF 1.2 to ISO. At that point JTC1 will approve or disapprove our use of ZIP as a Referenced Specification. If it does approve it, as I assume it will, then the SC34 proposal will be irrelevant. As I said before, I believe the proponents of this proposal have attacked the problem from the wrong end. Starting with a proposal for a new standard is premature. They really need to start with talking to the relevant stakeholder committees and see what the practical opportunities for harmonization are, and get agreement to work toward that. Assuming that you already know the answer, without talking to any of the stakeholders, is always the wrong approach. The creation of a new standards project comes at the end of a process of getting stakeholder buy in. To do it in the other direction is like renting a wedding hall, hiring a band, getting fitted for a tuxedo, sending out invitations and only then looking for a bride. It won't work. Next time, try starting with a kiss ;-) -Rob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]