Cooperative stance?

["MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>]

Dear the ODF TC,

ODF 1.0 does not correctly use "RELAX NG DTD Compatibility", which 
is a committee specification of the OASIS RELAX NG TC.  This problem 
was pointed out by Alex Brown [1] and he kindly gave a fix.  As 
an expert of RELAX NG, I believe that he did point out a problem 
of the RNG schema of ODF 1.0 and that his fix is reasonable.   

No standards are bug-free.  But if someone reports bugs, it is 
always a good idea to address them by publishing corrigenda.  Otherwise,
people will start to distrust you.

Rob Weir [2] of IBM, a co-chair of the ODF TC,  has emotionally argued
against Alex Brown.  Is this the intention of the ODF TC to ignore bug
reports and attack those who report bugs?  Even if you do not agree on 
everything Alex wrote, he contributed to ODF by pointing out a real 
problem and providing a fix.

The Japanese vote on the application for renewal of ISO/IEC JTC 1 PAS
Submitter Status [JTC 1 N 9019] was approval, but it accompanied 
some comments on the cooperative stance of the OASIS ODF TC.  
I am wondering if Japan should have taken a stronger action.

Just in case you do not know me.  I am the chair of the OASIS RELAX NG 
TC and a co-inventor of RELAX NG.  I am the convener of SC34/WG1, 
which is responsible for ISO/IEC 26300.  I am a member of the 
Japanese mirror committee for SC34.  I am the chair of a Japanese 
committee for JIS ODF.  I am the author of an ODF defect report 
from Japan.

[1] http://www.griffinbrown.co.uk/blog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=f0384bed-808b-49a8-8887-ea7cde5caace
[2] http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/05/odf-validation-for-dummies.html

-- 
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <EB2M-MRT@asahi-net.or.jp>