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 Ballot N1414 "New Work Item Proposal on DocumentPackaging"


On 6/4/2010 4:21 PM, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> you wrote:
>> I'm not saying that there are not interesting things that could be
>> standardized here.  For example, it might be nice to have a standard URL
>> protocol for ZIP, or standard fragment schema for URL addressing of ZIP
>> items, etc.  Or any other conventions that are effectively a layer between
>> core ZIP's compression/packaging specification and what ODF/OOXML/EPUB
>> use.  But including the core ZIP packaging/compression in the same
>> standard is a real bad idea, IMHO.  As I said before, it is like
>> specifying Unicode and XML in the same standard.  Or XML and ODF in the
>> same standard.
> Surely the work item proposal asks for an _independent_ standard? Or
> am I getting you wrong here?
> I otherwise tend to agree with Dennis, there's merit to have
> properly standardized what we're referencing, instead of reliance on
> single-vendor goodwill ...

Well, but there is a meta-issue about "properly standardized" and that 
is the assignment of the item to a WG whose has the requisite domain 
knowledge to do the standard. Having an interest, even an important 
interest, as does ODF, doesn't always = qualification to do the work.

Moreover, standardizing someone else's technology seems just a bit odd. 
I would feel pretty strange if the W3C were to decide to do a work item 
on extensions to the ODF standard. Might be a useful thing but I would 
sorta expect them to at least ask us first.

Lastly, realize there are other mechanisms for referencing non-ISO 
materials. The ISO-brand-citing is just a way to try to attract 
business. It really doesn't have anything to do with the quality of 
work. I have seen very excellent standards in ISO, W3C, OASIS, IETF and 
some, well, not so excellent ones.

Let me hasten to add that whatever its source, the Zip work qualifies as 
first class work.

The other metapoint is that the Zip format is broader than just document 
packaging. And it should not be only associated with document packaging.

Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!


PS: I don't agree with those who say that only commercial software is 
great, but I also don't agree that only publicly maintained standards 
are great. Life is complicated and the truth is probably somewhere in 
between and moves on occasion. We have quite enough to do getting ODF 
1.2 out the door and getting on a production schedule for ODF-Next.

Prejudices showing but I think the current version is clean enough that 
regular revision or improvement will not be fraught with danger of 
unknown breakage points.

> Cheers,
> -- Thorsten

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)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net

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