My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[rjelliffe at allette.com.au]

Here is what I would put.

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

The most we would request at this stage is that the Widgets format would
avoid any unnecessary features that might prevent a Widget from containing
a directly embedded IS 29500 (OOXML) or IS 26300 (ODF) file.

The requirements for OOXML in this regard are merely to avoid using a ZIP
part named _rels/.rels  and a ZIP part Content_Type.

The requirements for ODF are in flux at the moment, pending the
development of ODF 1.2 Part 3.

> 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, some members of WG4 intend to join a public
> mailing list for the discussion of a scheme for package URIs, namely
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pkg-uri-scheme/>.