DR-08-0012 Namespace Mapping Table v2

[Rick Jelliffe]

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Yes, you are very late.  I am reluctant to revisit our decision 
> to change the namespaces for "strict".  Revisiting it would be
> disappointing to those who have spent a lot of time on it and
> contributed to it significantly.
>   
Yes, and I apologize for raising the issue after it has been raised. I 
am not calling for the
issue to be re-opened now. But I hope WG4 will double-check it before 
the draft.

However, I think it is important for WG4 to be very explicit about its 
goals: if we are creating
an incompatible language with an incompatible namespace, we need to have 
1) good reasons
why it fits in the scope of IS29500 and 2) that MS is completely onside, 
to prevent us
wasting our time.

I think there is little chance that a strict version of Open XML in a 
new namespace would be
accepted by NBs (those not involved in WG4).   They will say:

* If a new language is needed, it should be ODF
* This does not help interoperability, because it creates a third thing 
people have to support
* This goes against the thrust of what the BRM intended for Strict
* This gives MS more wiggle room to delay and avoid supporting or 
switching to Strict

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe