An outline proposal
dave.pawson at gmail.com
Thu Oct 14 10:33:46 CEST 2010
On 14 October 2010 09:16, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton at acm.org> wrote:
> Dave, when I say a package format for documents, I don't mean documents in a Zip, I mean where the complete package is the representation of the document and the files in the package are components of the document structure, whether markup, image files, binary components, etc. ODF uses packages this way, OOXML uses packages this way, and I understand that there are other formats that do likewise.
I really don't see why ODF/29500 class should be the focus Dennis? Far
more utility in making
our deliverable general purpose? Especially if it will also handle such as ODF?
> I believe that it is those kinds of applications that are the focus of the study period. We'll find out on the call, I expect.
I gathered it was up to this group to define the deliverable too.
> As I said, my interest is not in Zip as a general format for archiving collections of files. I think it does that just fine already.
But there is no standard, which is the interest point of ISO?
> And one reason for archiving a set of files and their directory structure is to transport that to another system, whether for interchange, backup, or replication.
and I responded that this 'transport' is out of scope? What you do
with the zip/package structure
is up to users?
> I mention PKWare because the specification for Zip is their work and PKZip tends to implement a particular level of the specification at any time.
Which was a blocker to the previous work? Hence my avoidance of
commercial implementations, at least until we get a legal input?
> It is time for you and I to agree to disagree and await information from the convenor on how the study period is expected to operate.
Not how surely, more a case of scope and 'what' we are expected to deliver.
Come on Alex, speak up.
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
More information about the sc34wg1study