[Wylug-discuss] MS Office XML and ISO Standardisation

[ALLEN, David]

I have been following this discussion but have not got involved because
it is an area I know very little about, so maybe someone can answer my
questions, and yes, I am just being a "Devil's Advocate".

The key question is "does it matter?". I am as big a fan of Open Office
as the rest of you and if a standard is developed which allows open
office to work with office does it matter who publishes it? Or is it
that the standard does not include all the required info?

The longer this procedure goes on the more chance Microsoft will give up
and use their closed format which has done them well over many years;
after all the only company I can see to loose with this (or any) new
standard is Microsoft!

David


-----Original Message-----
From: wylug-discuss-bounces at wylug.org.uk
[mailto:wylug-discuss-bounces at wylug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Fisher
Sent: 07 February 2007 13:28
To: WYLUG
Subject: [Wylug-discuss] MS Office XML and ISO Standardisation

Hi all,

Since it's still difficult to get news about this process, I thought
that I'd post a few URLs:

  1. Andy Updegrove's Standards Blog
 
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=3D2007020614
5620473
    
    "Well the results are in, and an unprecedented nineteen countries
     have responded during the contradictions phase - most or all
lodging
     formal contradictions"

  2. 19 Nations Respond, Most File Contradictions on Microsoft's OXML
     http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=3D20070206212917261
     The Groklaw Discussion.

HOWEVER:

  This overview of the procedure, makes it clear that nothing has really
  been 'won' yet. 
  
     http://opendocument.xml.org/node/238
  
  The contradictions raised by national standards bodies have to sustain
  their 'contradictions', if they are to have any effect. 
  
  A quote:

     "If an NB submits a contradiction, then attempts are made to
resolve
     differences by the ISO's ITTF and the JTC-1 Secretariat before
     ballots are distributed on the contradiction. If an NB maintains a
     contradiction, further dispute resolution processes may ensue, but
     a contradiction is in effect a veto. The default is that the draft
     standard remains on the fast track unless a contradiction is raised
     *and maintained*. If the draft standard remains on the fast track,
a
     final ballot on Ecma 376 adoption as an International Standard is
     distributed to all ISO members five months after the vote on the
     contradiction.  However, I stress that it is a consensus process
     throughout.  It is not, for example, a process whose decisions are
     made by majority vote.

     During the 5-month period, the draft standard is reviewed and can
     be amended by agreement. However, if Ecma 376 is derailed from the
     fast track, then it would have to be resubmitted by Ecma
     International to JTC-1 on a more flexible track, allowing far more
     time for thorough review and evaluation of the 6,039-page draft
     standard. That assumes that Ecma would decide to do so rather than
     just abandoning the ISO standardization goal."

I'm not sure that I've fully understood the above, but my first reading
of it leads me to believe that:
    
    1. 'Open' XML is still on the fast track, until all the
       contradictions are dealt with.

    2. If the contradictions are *not* maintained, there will be a vote
in
       5 months time to make 'Open' XML (inluding any consensus
       ammendments) an ISO standard.

    3. If the contradictions are *are* maintained, 'Open' XML is off the
       fast track, and has to go through the lengthy and  detailed
       process of normal standardisation.

What I'm unclear about, is what the author means by 'the vote on the
contradiction'.

In this case, is the 'vote':

  1. The mere raising of contradictions?
  2. Some kind of vote on ECMA's proposed 'resolutions' to the 19
     contradictions?
  3. Some kind of vote on whether maintained contradictions are
     accepted?
  4. Something else altogether?

Perhaps Mike Banahan ca help out on this one?

Dave
  


_______________________________________________
Wylug-discuss mailing list
Wylug-discuss at wylug.org.uk
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/wylug-discuss

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE  The information contained in this=0A=
e-mail is intended only for the confidential use of the above=0A=
named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or person=0A=
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you have=0A=
received this communication in error and must not distribute or =0A=
copy it. Please accept the sender's apologies, notify the sender =0A=
immediately by return e-mail and delete this communication.=0A=
Thank you.