Letter to the W3C Web Applications WG from ISO JTC1/SC 34/WG4

[Arthur Barstow]

Hi,

Thanks for your e-mail.

Regarding your group following WebApps' widget-related specs, I think  
the easiest way is to subscribe to our Public mail list (public- 
webapps at w3.org) (see [1]). Please note our latest publication status  
is provided at [2].

During our January 7 weekly widget voice conference, we briefly  
discussed [3] your e-mail. One area mentioned that could benefit from  
an open standard is ZIP (e.g. "ISO ZIP").

-Regards, Art Barstow

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/webapps/wiki/PubStatus
[3] http://www.w3.org/2010/01/07-wam-minutes.html#item03


On Dec 29, 2009, at 2:09 AM, ext Innovimax SARL wrote:

> 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 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.  The text of the OPC specification is available as
> ECMA 376 Part 2 (Second Edition)
> <http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/ 
> Ecma-376.htm>
> and from the public ISO Website
> <http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html>.
>
> WG4 believes that widget packages and OPC packages are meant to meet
> different requirements, and thus they cannot be unified in a hurry
> without causing significant damage to OOXML, widgets, or both.
> Requirements specific to OPC include file renaming and
> fallback-guaranteed extensibility through ISO/IEC 29500-3 (Markup
> Compatibility and Extensions).  Meanwhile, those specific to widget
> 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, WG4 is interested in URI schemes, media
> types, and UTF-8 part names.
>
> WG4 understands that the widget package uses the latest version
> (6.3.2) of the ZIP specification, which allows UTF-8.  Meanwhile,
> ISO/IEC 29500-2 uses an earlier version (6.2.0) and relies on
> the %HH convention, since 6.2.0 was the latest version when
> Ecma TC45 started the first edition of OOXML.
>
> JTC1/SC34/WG4 looks forward to your views on this matter.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mohamed ZERGAOUI on behalf of SC34/WG4 Convenor MURATA Makoto  
> (FAMILY Given)
>
> -- 
> 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 €
>