From owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org Wed Oct 24 09:08:20 2007 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_DXB9Bco/n+HasuOBVSK11w)" Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:06:56 -0400 From: robert_weir@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: INCITS-V1: AFNOR proposal for revisable office document formats In-reply-to: <200710232349.l9NNn32g708067@jurassic-x4600.sfbay.sun.com> Sender: owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org To: incits-v1@incits-v1.org Reply-to: incits-v1@incits-v1.org X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on WTFMAIL03/WTF/M/Lotus(Build V704_10142007|October 14, 2007) at 10/24/2007 12:06:57 PM, Serialize complete at 10/24/2007 12:06:57 PM X-PMX-Version: 5.2.0.264296 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== This is a multipart message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_DXB9Bco/n+HasuOBVSK11w) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT If you have access to AFNOR's DIS 29500 ballot comments you can read a fuller account of their proposal as J1N8726-03.doc. It seems to boil down to: Split ECMA 376 into two parts, a core ("essential") part and a "legacy" extensions part containing items like VML. Approve both as a two-part Technical Specification Converge ODF and OOXML-Core I'd note that some of these ideas were echoed by other NB's. For example, I believe V1 also recommended a formal multi-part submission (3rd comment on page 3 of our comments). Also, Standards New Zealand recommended: "The DIS standard be considered by JTC 1 committee for publication as a Type 2 Technical report" and "Seek to harmonize with the existing ODF standard to reduce the: cost of interoperability, cost of having two Standards, cost of support/maintenance." (Maybe someone can tell us what the formal difference is between a "Technical Specification", a "Type 2 Technical Report." Do either of them even exist in JTC1?) IMHO, some sort of split is warranted for a standard of this length and complexity. We've already seen that at its present length it is impractical to process -- too much to swallow at once. But does it more naturally split by functional area (spreadsheet versus word processor versus presentation) or by core versus legacy? I can see arguments either way. As for convergence, I'd look at DIS 29500 Part 5, and the extensibility elements there. If legacy extensions in DIS 29500 were expressed using that mechanism, and if ODF adopted this same extensibility mechanism, then I think we would have any easier time of it. On the other hand, the difficulty with convergence appears to be more political than technical. We can probably come up with several different good technical approaches to convergence without stumbling on a single workable political solution. -Rob owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 10/23/2007 07:49:03 PM: > AFNOR, the French National Body, has made an interesting proposal > for the progress of both OOXML and ODF: > > http://www.infotechfrance.com/cgi-local/affichage_signets.pl? > UNI_ID=8&RUB_ID=53&SIG_ID=4304&actu=1 > > This plan strikes me as quite sensible. What do other members of > V1 think? > > Jon ___________________________ Rob Weir Software Architect Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software IBM Software Group email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com phone: 1-978-399-7122 blog: http://www.robweir.com/blog/ --Boundary_(ID_DXB9Bco/n+HasuOBVSK11w) Content-type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
If you have access to AFNOR's DIS 29500 ballot comments you can read a fuller account of their proposal as J1N8726-03.doc.  It seems to boil down to:
  1. Split ECMA 376 into two parts, a core ("essential") part and a "legacy" extensions part containing items like VML.
  2. Approve both as a two-part Technical Specification
  3. Converge ODF and OOXML-Core

I'd note that some of these ideas were echoed by other NB's.  For example, I believe V1 also recommended a formal multi-part submission (3rd comment on page 3 of our comments).

Also, Standards New Zealand recommended: "The DIS standard be considered by JTC 1 committee for publication as a Type 2 Technical report" and "Seek to harmonize with the existing ODF standard to reduce the: cost of interoperability,  cost of having two Standards, cost of support/maintenance."

(Maybe someone can tell us what the formal difference is between a "Technical Specification", a "Type 2 Technical Report."  Do either of them even exist in JTC1?)

IMHO, some sort of split is warranted for a standard of this length and complexity.  We've already seen that at its present length it is impractical to process -- too much to swallow at once.  But does it more naturally split by functional area (spreadsheet versus word processor versus presentation) or by core versus legacy?  I can see arguments either way.

As for convergence, I'd look at DIS 29500 Part 5, and the extensibility elements there.  If legacy extensions in DIS 29500 were expressed using that mechanism, and if ODF adopted this same extensibility mechanism, then I think we would have any easier time of it.  

On the other hand, the difficulty with convergence appears to be more political than technical.  We can probably come up with several different good technical approaches to convergence without stumbling on a single workable political solution.

-Rob

owner-incits-v1@incits-v1.org wrote on 10/23/2007 07:49:03 PM:

> AFNOR, the French National Body, has made an interesting proposal
> for the progress of both OOXML and ODF:
>
>
http://www.infotechfrance.com/cgi-local/affichage_signets.pl?
> UNI_ID=8&RUB_ID=53&SIG_ID=4304&actu=1
>
> This plan strikes me as quite sensible.  What do other members of
> V1 think?
>
> Jon


___________________________

Rob Weir
Software Architect
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Software Group

email: robert_weir@us.ibm.com
phone: 1-978-399-7122
blog:
http://www.robweir.com/blog/
--Boundary_(ID_DXB9Bco/n+HasuOBVSK11w)--