Proposed Response to FPDAM Part 1 BR-0001, et al
MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)
eb2m-mrt at asahi-net.or.jp
Tue Jan 26 16:31:09 CET 2010
As convenor, I think that we should not spent too much time on this
since all of us anyway agree not to introduce any version attribute.
But I also would like to make the record straight.
I can now explain why I do not quite like the current wording.
Member bodies correctly pointed out that there are no easy and reliable
mechanisms for distinguishing Ecma-376:2006 documents and
transitional ISO/IEC OOXML documents. Implementations have to rely
on heuristics: software information recorded as part of OOXML documents.
Since such heuristsics are not very appropriate as part of ISO/IEC standards,
we cannot say that no more mechanisms are needed.
But we also believe that a versioning attribute would not allow easy and
reliable detection as long as we want to make most of the existing documents
conformant to both Ecma-376:2006 and ISO/IEC 29500. So, we are struck.
We gave up.
Concerns about possible conflicts with other mechanisms such as
namespaces and MCE are valid. But I think that there concerns are
not the biggest reason for not incorporating a version attribute as part
of this FPDAM. Conflicts can probably be minimized or avoided if the
version attribute is kept extremely simple (e.g., @ecma376_2006 = "false")
The biggest reason is that version attributes would not allow easy and
reliable detection. For example, although presense of @ecma376_2006= "false"
would imply ISO/IEC 29500, absense would provide no information.
More information about the sc34wg4