Re: [office-comment] ODF still fails to specify scripting properly (ODF 1.2 CD01)

[marbux <marbux@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 8:05 AM,  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Alex Brown" <alexb@griffinbrown.co.uk> wrote on 03/01/2009 06:32:49 AM:

> This is a great suggestion.  I'll make sure it is included in the list of
> suggestions that the ODF-Next subcommittee considers.
>
> We might even be able to address some of this in ODF 1.2, such as
> specifying the storage aspects of the script and how the script declares
> what scripting language it uses.

The standard currently in development is ODF 1.2, not ODF-Next.  There
are applicable meta-standards that require compliance in ODF 1.2.

The relevant ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives guidance:

"These Directives shall be complied with in all respects and no
deviations can be made without the consent of the Secretaries-General.

...

"A purpose of IT standardization is to ensure that products available
in the marketplace have characteristics of interoperability,
portability and cultural and linguistic adaptability. Therefore,
standards which are developed *shall* reflect the requirements of the
following Common Strategic Characteristics:

 - *Interoperability;*
 - Portability;
 - Cultural and linguistic adaptability."

ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, (5th Ed., v. 3.0, 5 April 2007) pg. 11
(PDF), <http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf>

"[I]nteroperability is understood to be the ability of two or more IT
systems to exchange information at one or more standardised interfaces
and to make mutual use of the information that has been exchanged. An
IT system is a set of IT resources providing services at one or more
interfaces.

...

"Standards designed to facilitate interoperability need to specify
clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are
essential to achieve the interoperability. Complexity and the number
of options should be kept to a minimum[.]"

Ibid., pg. 145 (Annex I).

One can arrive at the same result by applying the following provision
from Annex 3 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (ATBT)
that applies directly to standards work at OASIS:

"E.     The standardizing body shall ensure that standards are not
prepared, adopted or applied with a view to, *or with the effect of,*
creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade."

<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_02_e.htm#ann_3>.
On applicability to OASIS, see ATBT article 4 section 4.1.
<http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_01_e.htm#article4>
and 19 U.S.C. 2531, et seq.,
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode19/usc_sup_01_19_10_13_20_II.html>
(U.S. implementing statute for the ATBT); Cf., 19 U.S.C. 2504(a)
(limiting applicability when there is a conflict with other U.S. Code
provisions).

Is the obstacle to international trade created by an interoperability
break point in the standard "unnecessary" within the meaning of the
ATBT? If so, the ATBT forbids the presence of the break point in the
standard.

As to the meaning of the phrase "unnecessary obstacles to
international trade" see ATBT article 2 section 2.2, which applies top
international standards and which echoes the phrase but identifies
factors to be considered in determining whether an obstacle is
unnecessary.  <http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/tbt_01_e.htm#article2>;
see also 19 U.S.C. 2531(b),
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode19/usc_sec_19_00002531----000-.html>
("unnecessary obstacles" as interpreted by the U.S. implementation of
the ATBT).

To put it bluntly, I'll ask: Are these two goals in the development
agenda for "strict" ODF 1.2:

[i] specifying "clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements
that are essential to achieve the interoperability?"

[ii] minimizing the "[c]omplexity and the number of options?"

Best regards,

Paul E. Merrell, J.D. (Marbux)

-- 
Universal Interoperability Council
<http:www.universal-interop-council.org>