An outline proposal
Dennis E. Hamilton
dennis.hamilton at acm.org
Wed Oct 13 21:04:05 CEST 2010
Your first proposal condition was
"1. Provide a compressed archive format for general use."
and I was disagreeing with that.
I believe we want a package format for documents, and the intention is to use Zip as the basis. I trust we will resolve that quickly, because the moment Zip is not the basis I can spend my efforts elsewhere.
When I mean fundamental Zip I mean a constrained subset of PKWare Zip format that works as a packaging form with high portability and is not required to deal with the issues of transporting of archived materials (like TAR, TGZ, PAX [all Unix acronyms for archive formats], and the general Zip archive format).
I expect that a Zip/D would be such a limited profile defined as a free-standing specification.
I don't expect legal issues at that level and don't see any reason to consider alternatives because of legal issues unless there are any.
Microsoft OPC is specified in ISO/IEC IS 29500-2:2006 and the last time I checked, it is an ISO Standard. OPC is also used in XPS (XML Paper Specification [last time I checked], an ECMA specification for final-form formats suitable to submission to printers, I believe) and are interesting for their rationalization of inter-part dependencies within a package and also referencing parts via external-to-the package IRI Reference resolvers.
I use Zip/D, Zip/D0, ..., Zip/D2 as conceptual placeholders for the kind of thing I suspect we are after here and what I would like to encourage, at least through Zip/D1, or Zip/D+XML or whatever we'd call it.
From: sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz [mailto:sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz] On Behalf Of Dave Pawson
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:11
To: ISO Zip
Subject: Re: An outline proposal
On 13 October 2010 19:07, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton at acm.org> wrote:
> I said,
> " I don't think we are clean-sheeting, and I will resist any effort to do
> I meant with regard to the fundamentals of Zip that are the substrate needed
> for document applications. I think there may need to be some creativity
> with regard to additional glue needed inside a Zip/D for document
> applications, but that doesn't interfere with Zip compatibility in the
> larger world of Zip usage.
There's another one, Zip/n ??
Since the group hasn't been given a scope and I believe we need one,
I started with a clean sheet, having no options.
I'm not sure what you're putting on the table as our scope?
zip? Legal getting in the way.
M$? Not an iso standard, just incidental isn't t?
Tks for the other acronyms.
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
sc34wg1study mailing list
sc34wg1study at vse.cz
More information about the sc34wg1study