Draft Report for SC 34

[Alex Brown]

Rob hi

Yes, thanks - your wording is a lot better - so I've adopted that, just translating your "concluded that it was in the best interest of all concerned" into a more ISO-esque "reached a consensus".

In general, I think it's useful to say something here as a courtesy to readers, so they know what they're looking at.

- Alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert_weir at us.ibm.com [mailto:robert_weir at us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 28 January 2011 14:44
> To: Alex Brown
> Cc: sc34wg1study at vse.cz
> Subject: Re: Draft Report for SC 34
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> You currently have:
> 
> "The principal output of this work had been a draft NWIP (see SC 34 Nxxxx)
> proposing how Zip may be standardized as a multi-part International
> Standard."
> 
> I don't believe this is correct.  We're proposing not to standardize ZIP at all,
> but to standardize a "document container file".
> 
> Your draft also says:
> 
> "The essence of the proposal is that Part 1 of this Standard should describe
> the core Zip format..."
> 
> Again, the draft NWIP is explicit that we do not duplicate descriptions of any
> core ZIP format features.
> 
> 
> So I'd recommend something more like this (to replace your third
> paragraph):
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The study group concluded that it was in the best interest of all
> concerned that the maintenance of the core ZIP technology remain with
> PKWARE and their "App Note" specification.  However, in order to ease the
> referencing of this technology from International Standards, and to
> standardize certain document-related conventions built on top of core ZIP,
> the study group is proposing a draft NWIP (see SC 34 Nxxxx). The essence
> of the proposal is that Part 1 of this multi-part standard should
> normatively reference the PKWARE "App Note" using a Referencing
> Explanatory Report (RER) mechanism as described in the JTC 1 Standing
> Document on normative referencing. PKWare, Inc. have indicated that they
> will be happy to work on revising their existing documents to maximise
> their suitability for this purpose.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I think my proposed language more accurately reflects what we've agreed
> on, and would lead to less confusion, e.g., with SC29 on the scope of work
> that we are proposing.
> 
> Alternatively, it would also be acceptable to me if we simply removed all
> editorializing from the report and stuck to the facts of when we met,
> etc., and pointed to the draft NWIP as the outcome.  That reduces the risk
> that the report and the NWIP express diverge intents.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> -Rob
> 
> 
> sc34wg1study-bounces at vse.cz wrote on 01/28/2011 06:44:25 AM:
> 
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Please find below a draft of what I propose to send to SC 34 as a
> > convenor's report on the Zip study work. My intention is to keep it
> > brief and factual - but any thoughts, comments, suggestions for
> > improvement etc. gratefully received.
> >
> > - Alex.
> >
> > -------
> >
> > At its plenary meeting in Tokyo on 2010-09-10, SC 34 initiated a
> > preliminary stage activity to investigate the basis on which the
> > "Zip" file format might be standardized.
> >
> > The activity, taking place in SC 34/WG 1, has been progressed in
> > three meetings to date, two teleconference meetings (see SC 34 N
> > 1545 and N 1552), and during WG 1's face-to-face meeting in Beijing
> > on 2010-12-09. Additionally, discussions have taken place on a
> > mailing list[1] - which has 21 subscribers - and a Wiki page is live
> > containing some further points of discussion[2].
> >
> > The principal output of this work had been a draft NWIP (see SC 34
> > Nxxxx) proposing how Zip may be standardized as a multi-part
> > International Standard. The essence of the proposal is that Part 1
> > of this Standard should describe the core Zip format by normatively
> > referencing documentation (the "appnote") from PKWare, Inc. using a
> > Referencing Explanatory Report (RER) mechanism as described in the
> > JTC 1 Standing Document on normative referencing. PKWare, Inc. have
> > indicated that they will be happy to work on revising their existing
> > documents to maximise their suitability for this purpose.
> >
> > [1] http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg1study/
> >
> > [2] http://www.xmlopen.org/wg1-wiki/index.php/Zip_Study
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> > 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
> > http://mailman.vse.cz/mailman/listinfo/sc34wg1study
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________
> ____________
> 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 
______________________________________________________________________