My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[Rick Jelliffe]

MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) wrote:
> Rick,
>
> Thank you for the comment, but I am afraid I do not quite understand it.
>
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Are you saying that it should be easy to distinguish widget packages and
> OPC packages by examining some parts?  (If so, I understand your point.)  Or,
> are you saying that widget packages should be prohibited from having parts 
> named _rels/.rels or Content_Type?  (If so, I do not understand.  Why?)
>   
As you know, I think that "harmonization" is more likely to occur by 
parallel alternatives rather than by a common single vocabulary. An 
OOXML file that is also a website (WAR), for example. 

There are already signs of this: for example, there are ODF files which 
embed PDF pages, the use of MathML as well as OMath, and in fact the 
Open XML MCE system is based on parallel alternatives.  An OOXML 
document that also can load in as a W3C Widget seems an interesting new 
delivery mechanism for OOXML.

AFAICS all that is necessary or possible at this stage is to make sure 
that this kind of file format mashup is not precluded by some dumb 
technical choice made now. So the more that the same low-level 
conventions w.r.t. ZIP subset, UTF-8 usage, URL scheme, part-to-name, 
and name clashes are used, the better.  But I recognize that this is 
somewhat outside the scope or logistics of WG4 proper.

So I think a more pro-active statement would be appropriate. I would 
suggest:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear 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.*

There are several current standards efforts which use an XML-in-ZIP
format. In particular SC34, WG4 maintains OPC, and WG6 is expected
to be processing the ODF 1.2 Part 3 Packaging specification in the
new year for an update to ISO/IEC 26300. At the ZIP, part name and URL
levels, there are many commonalities. 

WG4 believes that widget packages and OPC packages are meant to meet
different requirements, and thus they could not be unified in a hurry.

Requirements specific to OPC include file renaming and
fallback-guaranteed extensibility through ISO/IEC 29500-3 (Markup
Compatibiity and Extensions).  Meanwhile, those specific to widgets
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. 

The following are three possibilities:

1) 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/>.
Note that OPC has a package URI format: the "pack" scheme.

2) The OPC specification may be a useful source of ideas, terms, phrases
and references for the Widgets specification, notably in areas such 
as the ZIP subset, part concept, the part-to-name mapping, the pack 
scheme and UTF-8 usage. We commend these to the Web Applications WG.

3) Reducing gratuitous differences may serve the interests of the public and developers and allow future mashed-up document formats, for example the delivery of OOXML and ODF documents as W3C Widgets.  In concrete terms, OPC only reserves two file names: /_rels/.rels and  /[Content_Types].xml   The current Widgets working draft  does not use or preclude these, so we see no name clash that might require action. 

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

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)

* The text of the OPC specification as available from ECMA as
ECMA 376 Part 2 (Second Edition) <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm>
and from the public ISO Website.

-------------------------------------------------------------------