An outline proposal
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
robert_weir at us.ibm.com
Tue Oct 19 19:18:02 CEST 2010
sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 10/19/2010 11:54:41 AM:
> sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz
> On 19 October 2010 14:57, Bob Jolliffe <bobjolliffe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Agreed. What is actually in the zipfile is:
> > from http://www.pkware.com/documents/casestudies/APPNOTE.TXT
> So that's how pkware do it?
> Which puts it out of scope if we accept my proposal 1.1?
> If it is encumbered, which some in ISO seem to believe.
The Application Note is the specification of ZIP that is followed by
several vendors and is the specification that is normatively referenced by
ODF, OOXML, W3C Widgets and EPUB specifications.
I think we need to read the Application Note. I assume you have not read
it, since just a few minutes ago it sounded like you didn't know what it
In any case, I think we need to avoid violating ISO/IEC Directives by
discussing certain matters which we are explicitly told not to discuss.
ISO/IEC Directives, section 5:
"Chairmen of Technical Bodies will, if appropriate, ask, at an appropriate
time in each meeting, whether anyone has knowledge of Patents, the use of
which may be required to practice or implement the Recommendation |
Deliverable being considered. The fact that the question was asked shall
be recorded in the meeting report, along with any affirmative responses.
As long as the Organization concerned has received no indication of a
Patent Holder selecting paragraph 2.3 of the Patent Policy, the
Recommendation | Deliverable may be approved using the appropriate and
respective rules of the Organization concerned. It is expected that
discussions in Technical Bodies will include consideration of including
patented material in a Recommendation | Deliverable, however the Technical
Bodies may not take position regarding the essentiality, scope, validity
or specific licensing terms of any claimed Patents"
In other words, we ask for disclosures, and if none are given, then we
move on. And if any are given, they are not given to the WG, but are
filed via a disclosure to ISO, and we still move on, since we are
explicitly told that we "may not take position regarding the essentiality,
scope, validity or specific licensing terms of any claimed Patents"
So I'm reading this as saying that discussion of the applicability or
validity of a patent to this specification is out of order, but that were
a patent disclosure has been made, we can discuss whether or not to
include that technology.
More information about the sc34wg1study