Re: [office-comment] custom-defined schemas

["David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>]

Gary Edwards wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> I just wanted to thank you for taking such an intense interest in the 
> file format specification.  Your comments are  really informative.  They 
> will be read with great interest and discussed.  Although you've hit on 
> so many different areas it might take some time to reconcile discussions 
> with our current agenda.  I did want to thank you though, and let you 
> know that we are reading your comments and giving everything serious 
> consideration.

Thanks so much!!  I would really like to see a public, open specification,
supported by multiple vendors without royalties or other IP encumberences,
so that I can share typical office data.  This format and project
looks like just the ticket, it's what a lot of users want.

The XML support, and zip compression, is very nice; simple standards, yet
very powerful when combined.

I've sent in many comments, and I hope to send in some more, but
please don't get the idea that I think this is a terrible thing.
In fact, quite the opposite: this project appears far enough along that
it's worth commenting on.

This group will probably need to soon make a strategic decision:
at what point is it ready for a "1.0" version?  I will propose
various things, some of which are easy, others of which are hard.
I can easily imagine that this group might decide to make a few
minor changes and then simply standardize that as the first version.
While waiting for the "perfect" will result in a yet-more-perfect
specification, the lack of a standard at all is a serious problem.
By defining a reasonable starting point, it might make it easier
to get people to develop that version 2.0, because there will be more
experience with 1.0.  If the 1.0 format is good enough to be just
a little better than MS', that's probably good enough for a first version.

> We recently approved adding XForms and SMiL to the specification.  I 
> hope you'll take the time to factor that into your comments.  I'm 
> particularly interested in your comments regarding XForms and the EU 
> requirement for "custom-defined schemas".

I can try, but I'm not an OASIS member, so while I can see the
posted comments, it's harder to get context without being at the
meetings.  I posted a few ideas regarding custom-defined schemas.

I wish all of you the very, very best!!

--- David A. Wheeler