"Expert Contribution on OOXML Versioning"

[Chris Rae]

Norbert - I notice you were after some real-life use cases for MCE. Here are some - they are documents saved in Word, Excel and PowerPoint 2010, each of which contains an Office 2010 extension stored using MCE.

Hope this helps!

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] 
Sent: 18 April 2010 09:12
To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Cc: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: Re: "Expert Contribution on OOXML Versioning"

MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:

> I read your document "Expert Contribution on OOXML Versioning".

Thank you! I should perhaps explain that it was not my idea to write this little paper, or to call it "expert contribution", but it was a request from out of the Swiss mirror committee to become more active in working towards a resolution of this issue.

> In the past, some WG4 participants have expessed concerns about the 
> interactions or conflicts betweeen the versioning attribute and MCE.
> But your document does not  mention MCE.  It is still not clear to me 
> whether or not the versioning attribute works for your three use cases 
> when MCE-based extensions are present.

Even a simple version attribute would even in the presence of MCE-based extensions suffice to address the complexity that comes from the existence of different versions of the OOXML specification. It would however obviously not help with complexity related to MCE extensions, which in some cases might also justify use of separate import filters etc.

My current preference would be for a version attribute which encodes the ISO/IEC publication year of the base version of the standard together with a single integer number indicating a "patch level" in terms of amendmends and corrigenda. Obviously it would need to be standardized which integer number value corresponds to which set of amendmends and corrigenda.

For example, the version attribute could look like this:

  iso-iec:version="2008.3"

and this could be defined to mean something like

  "ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008+COR1+AMD1+COR2; ISO/IEC 29500-2:2008+COR1;
   ISO/IEC 29500-3:2008+COR1; ISO/IEC 29500-4:2008+COR1+AMD1+COR2"

The namespace prefix iso-iec would be declared as an ignorable namespace in order to ensure that conformant implementations of
Ecma-376 ed.1 will certainly be able to tolerate its presence.

I think that the best place to define values for the versioning attribute would be in a new, very short, ISO/IEC 29500-0, which would contain informative text giving an overview of ISO/IEC 29500 and normative text defining version attribute values. I believe that ISO/IEC has a way in which it could be specially designated to allow relatively easy frequent updating (i.e. whenever new AMDs and CORs are created.)

The potential presence of MCE does not in any way conflict with this, and it does not conflict with validation against the appropriate schema indicated by this version attribute, provided that the validation process is carried out as indicated in ISO/IEC 29500-3 by ignoring elements and attributes from ignorable namespaces.

The above proposal however obviously does not help with versioning and validation of MCE extensions, which I agree is wothwhile goal in its own right, but it's clearly too complex to allow it to be addressed by a simple version attribute. If we want such extensions to be carefully versioned, that would need a significantly more complex mechanism, that somehow addresses also the case of extension namespace elements and attributes being preserved by an application which does not understand them. At the current stage of the evolution of OOXML I doubt that we have enough experience with this kind of use-cases that it would make sense to standardize this at the current stage.

> At this stage, I do not think that WG4 can reach some consensus even 
> if I add this topic to the agenda for our next phone conference.

On the other hand, I think from the comments of various national bodies (not just Switzerland) it is also clear that the current situation witout proper versioning information also does not reflect any kind of consensus of ISO/IEC national bodies.

> Are you willing to study the interactions and possible conflicts 
> between the versioning attribute and MCE?

Yes, absolutely, provided someone puts me in touch with real-life use-cases of MCE.

Greetings,
Norbert

--
Representative in matters of international standardization of the Swiss Open Systems User Group /ch/open - http://ch-open.ch

Owner/CEO, Adaptux GmbH - http://adaptux.com Coaching and Consulting in all areas of informatics management including Goal-Setting, Strategy Development, Procurement, Day-To-Day Operations, Software Asset Management, Risk Management, Benefit Orientation Management.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: office 2010 docs using MCE.zip
Type: application/x-zip-compressed
Size: 44148 bytes
Desc: office 2010 docs using MCE.zip
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20100420/38a633ff/attachment-0001.bin>