OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

office message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?

Hi Patrick,
Is ISO 8879 SGML?
SGML try to separate semantic content(structure) and presentation, but
it can't work well in any condition. An example is HTML, which based on
SGML, inherited the same theory at begining, but have to add many
presentation elements after begining.
Maybe you pay attention to interop at semantic level only, the new
proposed TC will meet your requirment.
UOML is never the property of a particular vendor. It is open. Think
about Java, if SUN gave up all IPR at begining, I believe MS will dirty
it and the world will under the control of .NET, the same as Windows and
Office today.


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 3:21 AM
To: ALex Wang
Cc: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?


ALex Wang wrote:

>Hi Patrick,
>That's a pitty not meet you in joint TC meeting at OASIS Symposium.
Sorry I wasn't present. But I had promised my wife a vacation long 
before that meeting was set. ;-)

>  I
>have uploaded the slides and demo for this TC meeting. The main topic 
>is to realize interop via UOML. In fact, interop is the main purpose of

>the charter of proposed TC, it is at semantic level.  For UOML TC, the 
>main reason to define a operatiing interface standard is for use of 
>interop, it is at layout level( 
>I believe that maping to a different format is not reliable. An unify 
>operating interface is more feasible and can meet market requirement. I

>support to form a new SC within this TC, with the help of Adoption TC 
>and UOML TC, maybe also including the new proposed TC.
I will have to look at your proposal but correct me if I am wrong but 
isn't the UOML TC operating under RAND?

I think the division between structure and presentation, although 
softening over the years in a number of respects, was the right decision

beginning with ISO 8879.

Interoperability of presentation (or as you say in your slides 
post-typesetting) may well meet a market need and be interesting as well

from a technical standpoint, but I don't think it would meet what I 
consider to be the needs of interoperability. Particularly if the 
"operating interface standard" is the property of a particular vendor.

Hope you are having a great day!


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
>Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:35 PM
>To: Charles-H. Schulz
>Cc: ALex Wang; robert_weir@us.ibm.com; peter@vandenabeele.com;
>office@lists.oasis-open.org; peter.vandenabeele.be@gmail.com
>Subject: Re: [office] How about an interoperability Subcommittee?
>For reasons I detail below I think interoperability is the *next* issue
>but I would caution that we need to be mindful of the TC charter rules 
>in OASIS. I am not sure that any TC actually has a charter that would 
>cover a "standard" for interoperability. I don't think any of those for

>ODF or the UOML charter would cover it.
>I suspect that a new TC with both specific and 'future' standards
>against which interoperability standards could be specified would be 
>required. Besides, it would provide a more "neutral" meeting place for 
>the various format supporters to meet.
>It would take a lot of hard work but a TC that is sponsored by *all* 
>major format proponents I think would start with a high degree of
>credibility in the world of technology. Noting that the issue would be 
>*mapping* and not sniping about the choices made by any particular
>As many of you know, I urged an EU panel back in March to make a 
>between XML document formats a prerequisite for adoption of any XML
>format for office documents a prerequisite for adoption as an ISO 
>standard. Some of you may not be old enough to remember conversion 
>software that touted their abilities to convert between literally 
>hundreds of diverse formats in the "bad old days." I do. We are close
>having XML based archival formats and we should not screw that up by
>having data islands with inconsistent mappings between XML based
>Hope everyone is at the start of a great week!

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]