From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Fri Jun 22 08:12:55 2007 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:11:45 -0700 (PDT) From: jon.bosak@sun.com Subject: INCITS-V1: NamingDIS29500-Durasau-12 Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-Authentication-warning: jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com: bosak set sender to jon.bosak@sun.com using -f (For the text of the comment in question, see http://www.ibiblio.org/bosak/v1mail/200705/2007May23-170209.eml) I only partly agree with this comment. Let's walk through Patrick's argument: Since DIS 29500 is actually a representation of a legacy binary format in XML syntax, it is only fitting that the title to it reflect that purpose. It puts users clearly on notice that they are adopting a legacy document format, with all of the advantages and disadvantages of the same. Agreed that DIS 29500 should be much clearer about its primary purpose ("OpenXML was designed from the start to be capable of faithfully representing the pre-existing corpus of word-processing documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that are encoded in binary formats defined by Microsoft Corporation" -- Ecma/TC45/2006/374), I don't think it's necessary to embed that in the title. I'd be satisfied if it were just made explicit in the DIS. Further, it is well established that ISO standard titles should not be used to promote the products of any particular vendor. The use of "Office" in this proposal can have no other purpose and as such, should be excluded from any alternative name. It may be argued that "office" is just a generic term that's not intended to refer to the product suite whose binary formats it is the stated purpose of the specification to represent. Such an argument would be disingenuous in the extreme, but I would not be surprised to see it. The use of "Open" is deeply problematic as every ISO standard is as "open" as any other ISO standard. It is a marketing buzz word and does not belong in the title of a proposal that may become an ISO standard. I agree that the form "Open XML" offered as an equivalent (and presumably unofficial) term in Ecma/TC45/2006/374 is simply absurd, and its implication that DIS 29500 specifies some alternative form of the XML Recommendation itself is ridiculous. But I think that the use of "open" in the (presumably official full title) "Open Office XML" qualifies as what in advertising is called "harmless puffery." "Open" certainly does distinguish the present offering from what it is intended to supersede. An alternative name, one that accurately reflects the purpose of the standard, would reflect the rules that are applied to all other ISO standards. I'm not really moved by this line of argument to require a change in the name. What *does* move me to agree that the name "Office Open XML" should be changed is that it is designed to cause confusion with OpenOffice, a leading open-source ODF application. It is not the purpose of the standards we work on to cause confusion, and certainly not to deliberately cause confusion. The name should be changed to something that avoids this confusion rather than actively promoting it. Jon