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] SC34 WG6 meeting


I don't normally comment on the by-play between vendors and it isn't my 
plan to make it a practice now.

I did not attend the SC 34 WG6 meetings so will leave comments on what 
was or wasn't said to those who did attend.

I am familiar with the participation of Microsoft in the ODF TC and can 
say from experience (and the record should anyone care to look at it) 
that Microsoft has been a valuable and contributing member of the ODF TC.

I note that in Windows 7 that WordPad supports ODF as one of its 
formats. I don't know how else to characterize the inclusion of a format 
in a product as widely available and used as WordPad as other than as 
supportive of ODF.

I welcome the use of ODF by all parties, open source projects, 
governments, commercial vendors (yes, there are a few of those still 
around) and anyone else who needs a robust document format. ODF 1.2, 
which the TC is working on finishing when it isn't distracted by other 
issues, promises to be a major step in the development of office 
formats. (OK, that last statement reflects a personal prejudice. ;-) )

Hope everyone is having a great week!


Doug Mahugh wrote:
> I've read with some concern Rob's latest blog post, here: 
> http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/12/relevancy-of-odf-10.html. Although 
> not an official ODF TC document, it comes from the co-chair of the TC 
> and it's addressing a matter of ODF maintenance, so I expect that many 
> people will see it as an authoritative source of information about 
> recent developments in ODF maintenance.
> I’m concerned about this statement in particular, which is essentially 
> the centerpiece of the post:
> > Some of the nattering nabobs in SC34 (e.g., Alex Brown) are floating 
> the idea that ODF 1.0 should be withdrawn from ISO,
> > claiming it is not implemented and not relevant. At the recent SC34 
> meeting in Paris this view was echoed by a Microsoft
> > participant (one of many) in the meeting, who additionally urged 
> that a motion to withdraw ODF 1.0 be brought forward
> > at the Stockholm SC34 Plenary in March.
> I was there at the WG6 meeting, and I don't recall this happening, nor 
> can I find any reference to this in the minutes of the meeting.
> I do recall a discussion of Resolution #3 from the Bellevue SC34 
> plenary in September regarding amendment of ODF 1.0 to align it with 
> ODF 1.1. Although this resolution is never mentioned in Rob’s post, 
> I’m guessing that this may be the discussion he’s alluding to.
> During that discussion, several participants (all non-Microsoft 
> delegates from various NBs) expressing their concern about the 
> apparent lack of progress on OASIS’s response to that resolution. Some 
> felt that if such an amendment is never delivered then ISO/IEC 26300 
> would not reflect actual practice among ODF users, in particular as 
> regards accessibility issues. The theoretical concept of withdrawal of 
> ODF 1.0 only came up in a side discussion about what might happen if 
> the ODF TC never responds to Resolution #3 and ODF 1.2 gets a new IS 
> number, leaving ISO/IEC 26300 as a historical relic that is not 
> aligned with existing practice or existing implementations.
> I agree with the way Alex Brown characterized that discussion on his 
> blog recently 
> (http://www.adjb.net/post/SC-34-WG-meetings-in-Paris-last-week.aspx):
> > Most significant of all is the work to align the ISO version of ODF 
> with the current OASIS standard so that ISO/IEC 26300 and
> > ODF 1.1 are technically equivalent. The National Bodies present 
> reiterated a consensus that this was desirable (better, by far,
> > than withdrawing ISO/IEC 26300 as a defunct standard) and are 
> looking forward to the amendment project.
> I don't recall any Microsoft employee saying anything at all about 
> this matter in the WG6 meeting. I listened to the opinions of others, 
> but didn't express any opinion of my own during this discussion, and I 
> believe the same was true of the other Microsoft employees present. 
> Svante, since you were the other ODF TC member present, I'm curious 
> whether you have any different recollection. And Rob, would you be 
> willing to share the source of your information? Or name/quote the 
> “Microsoft participant” you have referred to?
> As it stands, it seems that WG6’s discussion of the status of an SC34 
> plenary resolution has been represented by a leader of the OASIS ODF 
> TC as “Microsoft” urging that a motion to withdraw ODF 1.0 be brought 
> forward at the Stockholm SC34 Plenary in March. This may be creating a 
> perception that a particular OASIS ODF TC member is working against 
> the TC's broad commitment to effective maintenance of ODF, and I think 
> that’s a misleading and inaccurate characterization of what happened 
> in the WG6 meeting.
> - Doug
> Doug Mahugh | Lead Standards Professional | Office Interoperability | 
> 425-707-1182 | blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh <http://blogs.msdn.com/dmahugh>

Patrick Durusau
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) 

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