a 'mooh' point

clearly an IBM drone

What's up Japan!

Jeeez ... has it been a long time since I last wrote a blog-entry here. It's not so much that I didn't want to write something ... but I have found myself pre-occupied with other tasks at the grinding mill. It also seems to me that most of the other participants of the disussions have done the same thing - maybe with on exception.

Anywho - in other news, OASIS submitted their response to the ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34-defect report.It is in form of the document "Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) 1.0 Errata 01". The Danish mirror-committee to JTC1/SC34 talked about it at our meeting last Friday and we will look into the response as soon as possible. I have made a kindof-thorough look-through of the document and I was able to confirm and accept most of the corrections. A few were a bit odd, but it's not a big deal. To me, the most important thing is to move on, have the "chapter" on ODF 1.0 in ISO/IEC closed and now concentrate on development of ODF 1.2 and"ODFNext" or whatever the latest friendly name of ODF 1.2++ is. It is my feeling that the Danish mirror committee concurs with me here, so I would suspect us to approve the response from OASIS before the JTC1/SC34-plenary in Pragh in the end of March 2009. If anyone in JTC1/SC34 need a helping hand editing the response and turning it into a COR, please let me know.

On more thing, though. Can anyone tell me if the proposed changes to IS26300 in the Errata 01 document are all included in ODF 1.2?

So what about Japan?

Well, next week the first meeting of WG4 in SC34 will take place in Okinawa, Japan. The draft agenda can be seen at the Japanese SC34 website and is also listed here:

  1. Opening - 2009-01-28 10:00

  2. Roll Call of Delegates
  3. Adoption of the Agenda

  4. Overview of the JTC 1 Maintenance Process (WG 4 N0012)
  5. Defect Reports (WG 4 N 0015)

  6. Comment Collection Form
  7. Schedule for Reprints or Technical Corrigenda

  8. Accessing the SC 34/WG4 Email Archive and Document Repository (WG4 N0014)
  9. Future Meetings (F2F and Teleconferences)

  10. Any other business

  11. Closing

So we are basically going to bee looking at what to do next. How will we structure our work? How will we keep the pace up and (rather importantly), how will we collect suggestions or defects from the public. I know that it is important to the Danish mirror committee that the widest possible audience will be heard, so I am looking forward to some interesting discussions here.

We will of course take a look at the defects that have already made their way to our system. There are currently about 50 single defects reported, some by ECMA and some by various national bodies. The defects range from spelling errors through decisions from Geneva not being implemented correctly to errors in the XML-schemas for OOXML. Denmark will sadly not be able to contribute at this time, due to "shortage of labour" but we still hope that we will have something by the end of March.

And finally - I have not asked for a full list of participants to the meeting just yet, but the last figure I heard was about 20 people in total. That's a lot - but still less than the 120 we were in Geneva.

Smile

PS: Is it cold in Okinawa?

Comments (11) -

I see the Schestowitz troll is calling you a 'Microsoft drone' and has added you to his poison pen collection.
You must be flatttered.

Gary,

Yes - I noticed that as well. I have been thinking about writing a small tribute-post to Roy for some time now, so I might be able to do so on my trip to Japan next week.

Smile

It's warm in Okinawa. In January, the average temperature is 17C.  
The highest and coldest temperature is 24C and 10C, respectively.

The agenda can be changed in Okinawa, but I am a little suprised to
see "how will we collect suggestions or defects from the public"
I have thought that we did discuss in London and agreed that each
member body will collect input from the public.

Murata,

No - I was not trying to re-open the discussion we had in London about collection of comments from the public. I would imagine that most countries would wish for as much participation from the public as possible - at least that is how we feel in Denmark. I was merely expressing my wish to get feedback from other NBs about how they have done in their countries. The Danish public has been a bit reluctant to contribute to the work - maybe because of a feeling of "disenfranchisement" or because they want a clearer picture of how maintenance of OOXML will be done.

If some of the other NBs have some success-stories, we'd be more than happy to hear them.

Smile

PS: I am happy to hear about the nice weather - I will pack my bathing-trunks and flip-flops as soon as possible.

My grinding mill has kept me pretty busy too, but I'm glad to hear you'll be in Okinawa.  Maybe we can find something to blog about there, and time to do so.

Regarding your question, I don't remember the process that the US has used for public comments, but INCITS V1 chair Patrick Durusau will be there next week and he'll know all of the details.

Hey, if you're such a Microsoft drone, how come you openly disagree with me so often?  You're the worst drone ever!

Hi Doug,

The Danish process is actually quite effective - it's just "send it to us". We don't know if it will scale, though, since noone has used it yet.

Smile

About being a drone, well I am actually only sure of a single thing that I am sure we agree/d on, and that is that it was a good idea to have OOXML in ISO. I don't think we agreed on "how", I don't think we agreed on "why" and all the other parameters as well.

I remember talking to someone sharing my views on approval of OOXML (and some the Hows and Whys as well) and since we both support ODF too (it's not a zero sum game, Stephen) we talked about how much work we should pour into ODF-work to "level-out" our "pro-OOXML-ness". He phrased it something like: "It's just not possible. If you don't attack OOXML you will never be accepted as an ODF-supporter."

Back to you, Roy Smile

I hope you guys get in a fix for the identification of Office Open XML file format versions.

hAl,

There are no such things as "safe bets", but this comes really close to being one. It is a high priority for quite a few people to discuss this here, so I can almost promise you that we will figure something out.

Basically there are at least a couple of solution to solve the problem. One would be to have specific namespaces for each version and another would be the "ODF-version" with an attribute having the version number of the specification number or something similar.

Smile

As long as it shows not only the version but also the strict and/or not strict interpretations of a version.

Hi hAl,

One of the good things about being here is being with people that live and breathe OOXML.

Thus, I asked around and the mechanism to distinguish transitional and strict conformance is already present in IS29500. If you look at section 22.9.2.2 in Part 1 you will see an attribute with the name "conformance" for each document root (wordpressingml, spreadsheetml and presentationml) containing this exact information. The schema defines an enumeration and in W3C Schema notation this is:

  <xsd:simpleType name="ST_ConformanceClass">
    <xsd:annotation>
      <xsd:documentation>Document Conformance Class Value</xsd:documentation>
    </xsd:annotation>
    <xsd:restriction base="xsd:string">
      <xsd:enumeration value="strict">
        <xsd:annotation>
          <xsd:documentation>Office Open XML Strict</xsd:documentation>
        </xsd:annotation>
      </xsd:enumeration>
      <xsd:enumeration value="transitional">
        <xsd:annotation>
          <xsd:documentation>Office Open XML Transitional</xsd:documentation>
        </xsd:annotation>
      </xsd:enumeration>
    </xsd:restriction>
  </xsd:simpleType>

Test:
[code=xml]
<root/>
[/code]

That is nice.

Comments are closed