Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al

[Innovimax SARL]

I agree with Murata san here : versionning is a HARD topic, and we almost
find no satisfying consensus

It still think that it is a mistake to keep it hard for implementers to make
the difference between ECMA version and ISO version (and further with any
subsequent version we will produce here at ISO), and I take every occasion
to say it loud.

So to say the least, I think that telling that "we are not sure" is a good
trade off in order to be able to answer something constructive

Mohamed

On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:56 PM, MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) <
eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp> wrote:

> > I think Shawn had it just right. I agree with him that this is exactly
> the right time to
> >make a strong/definitive statement. We have spent so much time on this
> >issue and made no change whatsoever.
>
> I do not think that we have spent a lot of time on versioning.  We spent
> a few hours in Denmark, and that's all.  A few hours are not at all good
> enough for this difficult topic.
>
> >I am not aware of any member
> >feeling so much in doubt that they are actively working on proposals to
> >identify unhandled cases that need new mechanisms.
>
> Had I not cared existing documents conformant to both the 1st edition
> Ecma OOXML and ISO/IEC 29500:2007, I would have proposed a mechanism
> for distinguishing the 1st edition OOXML and ISO/IEC 29500:2007.
> Moreover, when the next version of Parts 1 and 4 introduce significantly
> inconsistent changes, I may well propose a versioning attribute.
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>



-- 
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/20100125/aad83f6c/attachment-0001.htm>