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

[Shawn Villaron]

I’m confused.  We spent months talking about versioning in the context of the namespace DR.  So I’m confused when we say we’ve only talked about versioning for a few hours …

I don’t believe my text closes the doors on improving versioning down the road.  Rather, a few NBs have suggested we add a versioning attribute now.  Unfortunately, they’ve provided no real use case nor have they provided any details about how a versioning attribute/technology would work.  As you mention, versioning is hard.  Very hard.

So my original statement is that based on what we currently now, we don’t know of a reason why we need to changing our versioning strategy; furthermore, I acknowledge that more investigation is going on, and that that investigation might very well lead to additional versioning technology being added to ISO/IEC 29500.

Hence I don’t understand what we gain from a more weak statement.  At the moment, we aren’t hiding something from the NBs …

From: Innovimax SARL [mailto:innovimax at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 10:04 AM
To: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
Cc: Rex Jaeschke; SC 34 WG4
Subject: Re: Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al

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<mailto: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/20100126/cdf9e0a5/attachment.htm>