Flat Packaging Format (Possible OOXML extension 30114-3).

[Jim Thatcher]

Microsoft does not have a strong opinion either way on these two questions. If the experts conclude that the namespace name and/or the "xmlData" element name should be changed Microsoft can document our deviation from that, as Jesper suggests.

Please be aware that this draft was not available in time to provide the required notice for the US TAG to properly consider this proposal, and as such the US position is likely to be to abstain in any votes on this subject that are taken during the London meetings. This abstention should not be viewed as an objection to the proposal on the part of the US or Microsoft, just a procedural constraint.

Jim

From: Jesper Lund Stocholm [mailto:jesper.stocholm at ciber.com]
Sent: Monday, October 8, 2012 1:36 AM
To: Alex Brown; SC 34 WG4
Subject: RE: Flat Packaging Format (Possible OOXML extension 30114-3).

Hi Alex,

I think the option you mention regarding that "Microsoft" appears in namespace names is rather undesirable. I'd prefer us to remove the "microsoft" literal from the namespaces and let vendors document their deviances from the standard as at least Microsoft is doing it. We could even make a note on our webpage raising this issue with vendors being non-compliant.

Jesper Lund Stocholm
Senior Architect

m: +4530945570
jesper.stocholm at ciber.com
www.ciber.com<http://www.ciber.com>

[Description: cid:D6781C4D-B58B-4941-8067-4C31BB86383A]


[Description: cid:8E0977AC-AD06-468C-BA1C-2353BAC6D2B7]<http://www.facebook.com/ciber> [Description: cid:4D861CF0-5A3A-4C8C-BBBB-A5C478E5B4A2] <http://twitter.com/ciberinc>  [Description: cid:74A396DE-6768-4FFE-8310-85C1E72FE4DF] <http://www.linkedin.com/groups?mostPopular=&gid=123828>
[cid:image005.png at 01CDA54C.FA3C3640]<https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Jesper.Lund.Stocholm>

From: Alex Brown [mailto:alexb at griffinbrown.co.uk]
Sent: 2. juli 2012 16:20
To: SC 34 WG4
Subject: Flat Packaging Format (Possible OOXML extension 30114-3).

Dear all,

At the just-finished Brazil meeting I gave a brief presentation outlining a proposal for an alternative "flat" representation of OPC packages. Please find attached a draft for such a spec.

I have included some editorial notes which contain some important queries. I have attempted to reverse-engineer the format from what MS-Office does so as to give this standard a chance to integrate with the existing OOXML ecosystem, and to base it on something which has been implemented. However, some guesswork was of course necessary, so feedback would be valuable.

A couple of points of particular interest:

1. The namespace in existing implementations contains "microsoft", and I have left this as-is. Apart from the PR dimension I don't see this as significant as Namespace Names are merely arbitrary strings, and I think it is more important we plug in to existing files which may be out there then start with an incompatible freshly-minted Name (for which I can see no benefit).

2. Unfortunately, Microsoft has elected to name one of its elements "xmlData", which violates the spirit - and maybe the letter - of the XML Recommendation. I have however left this as-is as most tools in practice do not register this phenomenon. Thoughts?

- Alex.



______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20121008/1ed34d81/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 8715 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20121008/1ed34d81/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2373 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20121008/1ed34d81/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2317 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20121008/1ed34d81/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2449 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20121008/1ed34d81/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4940 bytes
Desc: image005.png
URL: <http://mailman.vse.cz/pipermail/sc34wg4/attachments/20121008/1ed34d81/attachment-0009.png>