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: EC Appraisal of ODF Specification open-ness (was RE: [office] Wrong link in the spec)

To expand on Regina's response:

 1. The correction is already in the OASIS ODF 1.0 Specification with ODF 1.0 Errata 01.

 2. The correction is already in the International Standard ISO/IEC 26300:2006 specification with COR1.

 3. In ODF 1.2 Part 3 the description has been changed along with normative reference to the later IETF RFC, [RFC4288].

In no case is that defect a barrier to correct, interoperable implementation of the ODF Specification.  Furthermore, the *specific* MIME types that are for use in conjunction with ODF documents are identified in section 1.7 (and Appendix C) of ODF 1.0/1.1 (with reference to [RFC2048] and in section 3.19 (and Appendix C) of ODF 1.2 Part 1.

It would appear that the EC approach to assessing how open a specification might be is based on inspecting grains of sand, without noticing whether or not the tide is coming in or going out.  That there was no effort to report or consult on a problem with the text is consistent with that and even more disheartening.  Is it even possible to know which version of ODF specification that brainless determination was based on, especially when there are ISO specifications, with Errata, available for international adoption?

That is not the approach taken by the Japanese national standards body, the organization that reported the defect and led to its constructive resolution at OASIS.
 - Dennis

PS: When the EC turns its attention to ODF 1.2 the regulators can hand-wring on the fact that the Appendix C MIME type for Database Front End documents (Table 26) is not "as registered" *and* this is non-normative anyhow.

PPS: This response is not an argument about whether or not the ODF specification is open or not. I expect that it will qualify as open by any criteria that are capable of determining that *any* international standard specification is open.  Whether ODF specifications are sufficient for independent interoperable implementation is far more interesting to me, and it should be of greater interest to the EC in its endeavors to foster adoption of open standards.  That would take a serious, constructive assessment and investment, something governments (and regulatory bodies) seem completely unprepared to undertake.

-----Original Message-----
From: office@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:office@lists.oasis-open.org] On Behalf Of Regina Henschel
Sent: Saturday, August 3, 2013 05:13 AM
To: office@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [office] Wrong link in the spec

Hi Charles,

Charles-H. Schulz schrieb:
> Hello,
> It has been brought to the attention of the Document Foundation as well
> as other European entities that the European Commission has labeled the
> ODF standard "not open" and problematic in one of its official
> publications.
> Inquiries on this matter has led us to receive the following answer
> from the European Commission: That there's a dead link in the
> specification at the section 17.7.3 :
> http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/media-types/media-types
> My question is twofold: what correction could be made to this deadlink
> (apart from its obvious removal) and how long would the publication of
> an erratum take?

The correction is already contained in
"OpenDocument v1.1 Errata 01 WD09"

Kind regards

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that 
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

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