Questions re the NWIP on a profile standard
alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk
Thu Nov 25 13:24:17 CET 2010
On (1) I'm not sure whether a Working Group has the authority to make a new work item proposal -- does a WG count as a "another technical committee or subcommittee" (Directives, 2.3.2) ?
In any case I believe the intention is merely to circulate the text of any such proposal to SC 34 in advance of the Prague plenary, so that SC 34 can decide how to proceed then. I had suggested a mid-February deadline for this, BUT checking the new combined Directives I see (184.108.40.206) that
"any [...] proposals for the addition [to the agenda] of new work item proposals should be sent to the committee secretariat by the members not later than two months before the meeting".
- so that gives us a deadline of the end of January if we want to circulate such a proposal.
On (2) I am myself not sure whether the experts are agreeing to produce a specific profile for SC 34's immediate ODF/OOXML needs, or a general-purpose modularisation which may be used for these purposes and others. It is not necessary for a proposal to enumerate detailed technical constraints (that is more the result of the onward work), and a proposal could indicate that stakeholders are to be consulted to ensure the that a goal of compatibility is achieved. What do the experts think?
On (3) this activity has been widely announced and WG 4 and WG 6 experts are engaged. I am mindful of the fact that in the Tokyo WG 1 meeting, there was a string consensus from the NB representatives present that there should be some kind of progress on this activity by the time of the next plenary, and that is why WG 1 was tasked with producing something for then. Right now the mechanism for feeding back into WG 1 is by participation in the study activity. On the specific question of a NWIP I expect a draft will need to appear fairly soon and be circulated in order to have a good chance of garnering feedback -- if a draft is produced, circulated to SC 34 at the end of January, and it turns out there is insufficient consensus over its content, it is in danger of not making smooth progress in Prague.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg1study-
> bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of Rex Jaeschke
> Sent: 24 November 2010 19:02
> To: 'ISO Zip'
> Subject: Questions re the NWIP on a profile standard
> Not having attended either teleconference, no doubt I'm missing some
> background; however, I have some questions.
> 1. I was assuming the study period would result in one or more
> recommendations, but that it would not itself be taking any other action prior
> to its report being presented next March. What will happen with the NWIP
> text being drafted? Does WG1 see itself as submitting that? If so, when?
> 2. Regarding a profile standard are you assuming that "one size fits all"
> users? That is, will it be exactly what both ODF and OOXML need? For
> example, it is quite likely that these standards reference different versions of
> the Appnote.
> 3. We can't assume that all the ODF and OOXML (and other) players are
> participating in this study period, so there will need to be time for members
> of WG4, WG6, and [given ODF's being a PAS submission,] OASIS's originating
> TC, to review your recommendations and to comment. [Separately, I liaise
> between WG4 and Ecma TC46, XML Paper Specification, as the XPS spec
> builds on OPC, which in turn builds on ZIP.] What is the plan to get formal
> feedback from these groups? Assuming the final set of recommendations
> will not be complete much before the March plenary it seems that such a
> formal review by these groups would need to come after that.
> IS 29500 Project Editor
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg1study-
> bounces at vse.cz]
> > On Behalf Of Alex Brown
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:33 AM
> > To: ISO Zip
> > Cc: dsdl-discuss at dsdl.org
> > Subject: Draft Report of teleconference, 2010-11-17
> > Dear all,
> > Please find a draft report of last week's WG 1 teleconference attached.
> > Please let me have your corrections.
> > For participants not on the call, please note that a strong consensus
> > emerged that producing a "profile standard" seemed like the best way
> > forward for bringing Zip into a standards environment, and that work
> > is underway drafting some text for a NWIP proposing this.
> > This "profile standard" is envisaged as an International Standard
> > which references the PKWare appnote using the RER mechanism, and
> > provides its own constraints, clarifications, etc.
> > - Alex.
> > --
> > Alex Brown
> > Convenor, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34/WG 1
> > Editor, ISO/IEC 19757-1 (DSDL Overview) Editor, ISO/IEC 19757-5
> > (Extensible Datatypes)
> > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> sc34wg1study mailing list
> sc34wg1study at vse.cz
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
More information about the sc34wg1study