Fw: RE: My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

Just in case this e-mail did not reach you...

Forwarded by "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>
----------------------- Original Message -----------------------
 From:    Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton at microsoft.com>
 To:      "MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)" <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp>,
          "'SC 34 WG4'" <e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org>
 Date:    Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:39:33 +0000
 Subject: RE: My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG
----

Here are some small editorial improvements.

> WG4 reviewed the candidate recommendation

Change "candidate recommendation" to "working draft" since the term CR means something in W3C and the draft being reviewed is only a WD.

> fallback-guranteed extensibility

Change "guranteed" to "guaranteed".

> widge ackages

Change "widge" to "widget"

>...Some flowery word here...

I suggest the following closing paragraph:

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

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp] 
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:58 AM
To: 'SC 34 WG4'
Subject: My action item: Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG

Folks,
Folks,

In the minutes of the last teleconf, there is one action item.

> Murata-san will study WC3's document http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets/ 
> and prepare a response. 


How do you feel about this draft?  I need some flowery words at the 
end of this mail, but I'm not a soliciast.  Help!

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 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.

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/>.

...Some flowery word here...

Regards,

SC34/WG4 Convenor
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)


--------------------- Original Message Ends --------------------