RE: [office] SC34 Ballot N1414 "New Work Item Proposal on Document Packaging"

["Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>]

I don't see the analogy in the context of data compression.

In the NWI, the proposal is to rely on the specification for compression that already exists and that is used for the DEFLATE algorithm of Zip.

I also don't see how Zip qualifies as a subset of ODF or OOXML.  If they were to intrude too far into how ODF or OOXML have custom rules for *content* of Zip packages, that would be a problem if the result is contradictory.  If the result remains hospitable as a carrier of ODF and OOXML representations, it strikes me as valuable.

Of course, the NWI has to lead to the formation of a working group where subject-matter expertise as well as standards-development expertise can be brought to bear.  

Where do you see such expertise existing that it could not be drawn upon for that purpose.  Do you have a better venue in mind?

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] 
Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2010 14:06
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] SC34 Ballot N1414 "New Work Item Proposal on Document Packaging"

Dennis,

On 6/6/2010 1:45 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> I mean, of course, competence in supporting standards-based interoperability by appropriate development of a specification suitable as an international standard.
>
>    
Well, but that presumes subject matter competence.

Data compression, as I understand the term, is at least as complex an 
area as document formats, and I would deeply resist a data compression 
group suddenly deciding it had the competence to standardize a sub-set 
of either ODF or OOXML.

Realize that is the argument that is being made, in addition to the 
other difficulties with the proposal.

[ ... ]