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

[Rex Jaeschke]

Murata-san wrote:

> 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.

This is simply not true!

As you all know, the Defect Report log not only contains each DR as
submitted, it also contains all the relevant information about discussions
on the DR that took place at the face-to-face meetings and teleconferences
(as recorded in the minutes) and from relevant mail to this email list.

If you go to the DR log and look at DR 08-0012, "Schemas: Supposedly
incorrect schema namespace names", which was submitted by CH, you will see 8
full pages of discussion (which is far more than for almost all other DRs),
broken down by the following postings:

2009-01-28 Okinawa meeting: [This was our first Face-to-face meeting]

Action: Shawn Villaron will produce a detailed proposal.

2009-03-24 Prague meeting:
Shawn Villaron made a presentation then lead a discussion on this. 

2009-04-07 Alex Brown:
2009-04-07 Shawn Villaron:
2009-04-07 Alex Brown:
2009-04-07 Makoto Murata:
2009-04-12 Makoto Murata:
2009-04-16 Teleconference: [This was our first teleconference]
2009-04-29 Gareth Horton:
2009-04-30 Jirka Kosek:
2009-04-30 Teleconference:
2009-05-14 Teleconference:
2009-05-28 Teleconference:
2009-06-11 Jesper Lund Stocholm:
2009-06-22/24 Copenhagen meeting:

It seems to me that a lot of time has been invested in this issue.

Rex

BTW, I already get too much email, so if you post to the whole WG4 list
there is no reason to also post to individual members of that list.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given) [mailto:eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp]
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 12:57 PM
> To: Rex Jaeschke
> Cc: 'SC 34 WG4'
> Subject: Re: Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al
> 
> > 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