[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"
Dennis, On 6/6/2010 1:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > I mean, of course, competence in supporting standards-based interoperability by appropriate development of a specification suitable as an international standard. > > Well, but that presumes subject matter competence. Data compression, as I understand the term, is at least as complex an area as document formats, and I would deeply resist a data compression group suddenly deciding it had the competence to standardize a sub-set of either ODF or OOXML. Realize that is the argument that is being made, in addition to the other difficulties with the proposal. > If one believes that standards-based interoperability is not a matter of importance in this case, that is a different matter I suppose. But it does raise the question of what it means for standards-based interoperability to be sought using specifications that rely on non-standards-based interoperability at their foundation. Unless of course, we are not attempting standards-based interoperability ourselves. > > You really need to see if the JTC 1 marketing department has an opening with rhetoric like that. ;-) The notion of "...standards-based interoperability...." does not rest on standards only citing JTC 1 or even SC 34 work products. Using Annex N we can create a "Referenced Specification" (RS). I find it amusing to consider that one of the criteria is: > the degree of market acceptance of the proposed RS; and Err, how do you say *universal* in ISO speak? Creating a "standard" for some sub-part of ZIP (assuming that is even meaningful and that we could do it without screwing up compatibility with the real ZIP standard) is the long way round to have a bibliographic citation of ZIP to support "...standards-based interoperability...." The only question is how to create a citation to a "standard" that already exists. Why not take the easy route? Patrick > - Dennis > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 10:31 > To: 'Patrick Durusau'; office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [office] SC34 Ballot N1414 "New Work Item Proposal on Document Packaging" > > And, assuming the work is desirable, who do you have in mind as a more-competent body than JTC1 [SC34]? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 05:03 > To: office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [office] SC34 Ballot N1414 "New Work Item Proposal on Document Packaging" > > [ ... ] > > 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 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) Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net Homepage: http://www.durusau.net Twitter: patrickDurusau
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]