Revised document conformance text
shawnv at microsoft.com
Tue Jul 12 21:44:36 CEST 2011
I tend to agree with Rex. The conformance text was one of the most complicated texts in the standard and any change to it should be scrutinized very carefully with as many different reviewers as possible. Handling this at a face-to-face seems like the right approach given the importance of the conformance text.
From: Rex Jaeschke [mailto:rex at RexJaeschke.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 9:30 AM
To: e-SC34-WG4 at ecma-international.org
Subject: RE: Revised document conformance text
> This DR was moved to the last call queue in Berlin. Since Doug raised
> a question and some people agreed, it now went back to "Further
> Consideration Required". WG4 will discuss this issue in the next
I have adjusted the status of these 3 DRS appropriately.
While I have no problem with WG4's discussing this topic on the next teleconference, I object to its attempting to close these DRs at that time.
As you may recall, I am the liaison to Ecma TC45 (OOXML) and Ecma TC46 (OpenXPS). During the deliberations for ECMA-376 (the precursor to 29500) some very capable people (led by Phillip Mansfield of Apple and Tom Ngo of
NextPage) spent a LOT of time drafting the conformance text. Given the typically low turnout at recent WG4 teleconferences and the fact that many
(most?) participants are multitasking while being on a call (just like they were in Berlin when this was rushed through), I request that "high impact"
items such as this one only be closed at Face-to-Face meetings where participation is higher and adequate time is spent. Assuming we discuss this at the next teleconference, I'll be able to solicit from TC45 and TC46 their feedback on the final proposal coming from that call before the Busan meeting.
More information about the sc34wg4