My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Folks,

Here is a revised version.  Since I believe that terms and concepts of 
OPC need some surgery, we shouldn't recommend ours to them.

Does somebody know for sure why OOXML uses ZIP 6.2.0
 rather than the latest version (6.3.2 )?  If there is a reason, we
have to say so.

Cheers,
Makoto
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear the W3C Web Applications WG, 

I am writing on behalf of ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG4, which is responsible 
for the maintenance of ISO/IEC 29500 (OOXML).

WG4 reviewed the working draft "Widgets 1.0: Packaging and
Configuration" with interest.  It provides a package format similar to
the OPC(Open Packaging Conventions), which is specified in ISO/IEC
29500-2.  The text of the OPC specification is available as
ECMA 376 Part 2 (Second Edition)
<http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm>
and from the public ISO Website 
<http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html>.

WG4 believes that widget packages and OPC packages are meant to meet
different requirements, and thus they cannot be unified in a hurry
without causing significant damage to OOXML, widgets, or both.
Requirements specific to OPC include file renaming and
fallback-guaranteed extensibility through ISO/IEC 29500-3 (Markup
Compatibility and Extensions).  Meanwhile, those specific to widget
packages include start files, icon files, localization, and
preferences among others.

Nevertheless, WG4 believes that there are quite a few similarities
between widget packages and OPC packages, and that information
exchange between the W3C Web Applications WG and WG4 would be very
fruitful.  Specifically, WG4 is interested in URI schemes, media
types, and UTF-8 part names.

WG4 understands that the widget package uses the latest version
(6.3.2) of the ZIP specification, which allows UTF-8.  Meanwhile,
ISO/IEC 29500-2 uses an earlier version (6.2.0) and relies on 
the %HH convention.  This is because ...

JTC1/SC34/WG4 looks forward to your views on this matter.

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)