My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[Innovimax SARL]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 8:46 AM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <
eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:

> > 2) We accept to have many specification but we ask them to try to avoid
> > mecanism that forbide merging two or more package type into one
>
> OPC has interleaving.  Should it be dropped?
>

Good point . It just mean that this feature will not be retained for the
compatibility profile

>
> OPC provides digital signature, and widget packages also provide
> digital signature.  The mechanisms are apparently different.  Should
> they be dropped or unified?
>

Again good point . They definitely should be kept but probably at some point
we could find a non empty intersection

>
> OPC uses %HH for non-ASCII part names.  Meanwhile wiget packaging uses
> a recent version of the ZIP spec, which provides UTF-8 part names.
> Should either OPC or widget packaging be changed?
>
> Again very good point, but why not improve OPC in order to deal with UTF-8
?

Well it just mean to me that we can publish good pratices with compatibility
profiles  in order to achieve full interoperability ** IF ** you want to
have one and only one package containing multiple document type. That's why
I think of it as another work item

Probably along the line of this work we could fine unnecessary differences
that we could align (not all but definitely some)

And it's the time to do that for Widget because, as Paul point it out, they
are back to WD since yesterday

Mohamed



-- 
Innovimax SARL
Consulting, Training & XML Development
9, impasse des Orteaux
75020 Paris
Tel : +33 9 52 475787
Fax : +33 1 4356 1746
http://www.innovimax.fr
RCS Paris 488.018.631
SARL au capital de 10.000 €
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20091030/bb9dc2cd/attachment.htm>