Skip to main content

Home/ Document Wars/ Group items tagged jtc-1

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Gary Edwards

ODF and OOXML must converge!! AFNOR, the French Standards Body, announces proposals for... - 0 views

www.infotechfrance.com/...affichage_signets.pl

cdf interoperability iso odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocment standards

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • AFNOR has recommended to ISO adopting an approach enabling it to guarantee – using ISO processes – mid-term convergence between Open Document Format (ODF) and OfficeOpen XML (OOXML), as well as the stabilisation of OOXML on a short-term basis.
  • Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions. Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality. Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years.   Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      Here's the meat of the French convergence proposal.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    French experts have determined that it is technically possible to converge ODF and MS-OOXML, into a single, revisable document format standard?

    The plan has four parts:

    "Firstly, to restructure the ECMA standard in two parts so as to differentiate between, on the one hand, a core of essential and simple functionalities to be implemented (OOXML-Core) and, on the other hand, all the additional functionalities required for compatibility with the stocks of existing office document files created by numerous users, which will be gathered within a package called OOXML-Extensions."

    "Secondly, AFNOR proposes to take into account a full series of technical comments submitted to the draft in order to make OOXML an ISO document of the highest possible technical and editorial quality."

    "Thirdly, it proposes to attribute to OOXML the status of ISO/TS for three years."

    Fourth, "Finally, AFNOR proposes to set up a process of convergence between ISO/IEC 26300 and the OOXML-Core. In order to achieve this, AFNOR will begin the simultaneous revision of ISO/IEC 26300 and of ISO/TS OOXML (subject to the latter being adopted after the aforementioned restructuring), so as to obtain the most universal possible single standard at the end of the convergence process. Any subsequent evolutions will be decided upon at ISO level and no longer at the level of such a group or category of players."




    So there you go.  A solution that removes ODF and OOXML from the clam
Alex Brown

Doug Mahugh : Tracked Changes - 0 views

blogs.msdn.com/...tracked-changes.aspx

shared by Alex Brown on 14 May 09 - Cached
  • Much was made during the IS29500 standards process of the difference in the size of the ODF and Open XML specifications.  This is a good example of where that difference comes from: in this case, a concept glossed over in three vague sentences of the ODF spec gets 17 pages of documentation in the Open XML spec.
    • Alex Brown
      Alex Brown on 14 May 09
       
      This is the nub; OOXML may be overweight, but ODF is severely undernourished as a spec.
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Alex, I know from your previous writings that you do not regard OOXML as completely specified. But your post might be so misinterpreted. In my view, neither ODF nor OOXML has yet reached the threshold of eligibility as an international standard, completely specifying "clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, Annex I. . OOXML is ahead of ODF in some aspects of specificity, but the eligibility finish line remains beyond the horizon for both.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Alex Brown on 14 May 09
     
    Paul, that's right - though so far the faulty things in OOXML turn out to be more round the edges as opposed to ODF's central lapses. Still, it's early days in the examination of OOXML so I'm reserving making any firm call on the comparative merits of the specs until I have read a lot (a lot) more. Is there an area of OOXML you'd say was particularly underbaked? I'm quite interested in the fact that neither of these beasts specify scripting languages ...
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Hi, Alex, Most seriously, there are no profiles and accompanying requirements to enable less featureful apps to round trip documents with more featureful apps, a la W3C Compound Document by Reference Framework. That's an enormous barrier to market entry and interoperability. That defect reacts synergistically with the dearth of semantic conformity requirements, with the incredible number of options including those 500+ identified extension points, and with a compatibility framework for extensions that while a good start leaves implementers far too much discretion in assigning and processing compatibility attributes. There are also major harmonization issues with other standards that get in the way of transformations, where Microsoft originally rolled its own rather than embracing existing open standards. I think it not insignificant that OOXML as a whole is available only under a RAND-Z pledge rather than being available for the entire world. The patent claims need to be identified and worked around or a different rights scheme needs Microsoft management's promulgation. This is a legal interoperability issue as opposed to technical, but an interoperability barrier nonetheless, an "unnecessary obstacle to international trade" in the sense of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. And absent a change by Microsoft in its rights regime, the work-arounds are technical. This is not to suggest that ODF lacks problems in regard to the way it implements standards incorporated by reference. The creation of unique OASIS namespaces rather than doing the needed harmonizing work with the relevant W3C WGs is a large ODF tumor in need of removal and reconstructive surgery. I'm not sure what is happening with the W3C consultation in that regard. I worked a good part of the time over several months comparing ODF and Ecma 376, evaluating their comparative suitability as document exchange formats. I gave up when it climbed well past 100 pages in length because the de
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    1. Full-featured editors available that are capable of not generating application-specific extensions to the formats? 2. Interoperability of conforming implementations mandatory? 3. Interoperability between different IT systems either demonstrable or demonstrated? 4. Profiles developed and required for interoperability? 5. Methodology specified for interoperability between less and more featureful applications? 6. Specifies conformity requirements essential to achieve interoperability? 7. Interoperability conformity assessment procedures formally established and validated? 8. Document validation procedures validated? 9. Specifies an interoperability framework? 10. Application-specific extensions classified as non-conformant? 11. Preservation of metadata necessary to achieve interoperability mandatory? 12. XML namespaces for incorporated standards properly implemented? (ODF-only failure because Microsoft didn't incorporate any relevant standards.) 13. Optional feature interop breakpoints eliminated? 14. Scripting language fully specified for embedded scripts? 15. Hooks fully specified for use by embedded scripts? 16. Standard is vendor- and application-neutral? 17. Market requirement -- Capable of converging desktop, server, Web, and mobile device editors and viewers? (OOXML better equipped here, but its patent barrier blocks.)
  • Paul Merrell on 14 May 09
     
    Didn't notice that my post before last was chopped at the end until after I had posted the list. Then Diigo stopped responding for a few minutes. Anyway, the list is short summation of my research on the comparative suitabilities of ODF 1.1 and Ecma 376 as document exchange formats, winnowed to the defects they have in common except as noted. The research was never completed because in the political climate of the time, the world wasn't ready to act on the defects. The criteria applied were as objective as I could make them; they were derived from competition law, JTC 1 Directives, and market requirements. I think the list is as good today in regard to IS 29500 as it was then to Ecma 376, although I have not taken an equally deep dive into 29500. You might find the list useful, albeit there is more than a bit of redundancy in it.
Gary Edwards

Comments Received in Response to JTC 1 N 8455 - 30 Day Review for Fast Track Ballot ECM... - 0 views

www.incits.org/...DIS29500.htm

ecma376 iso/iec iso26300 odf ooxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Well, this is interesting.

    What part of "Executive Board" makes you think they read 6,000 page XML specifications? <ge>

    I think, in the best bureaucratic tradition, they argued definitions until they convinced themselves that they didn't need to do anything.  They decided that one standard contradicts another standard only if the proposed standard causes the existing standard not to work.  This is from analogy with the Chinese WAPI WiFi networking standard last year that was defeated because the protocol caused radio interference with existing 801.11 networks.  So they said that OOXML did not contradict ODF because both files could exist on the same disk without interfering with each other.   You will note that thiss argument can be used for every XML format, every programming language, every operating system, in fact every software standard, since software is ultimately data, and data can be segregated on disks.  So they essentially chose a definition so narrow that it nullified the concept of "contradiction" for most of what JTC1 has authority over.<!-- D(["mb","<div><br><span style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><ge>  Wait a second.   You cannot have a OOXML document and a ODF document sitting on the same disk without having them interfer with each other.  We just proved that with our tests of both ACME 374 and ODF Da Vinci plugin on the latest release of MSOffice Word 2007.\n</span><br style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><br style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\"><span style\u003d\"color:rgb(0, 0, 153)\">OOXML clearly does interfere with the loading of an ODF file into MSWord 2007.  In prior versions of MSWord (98, 2000, XP, 2003
Paul Merrell

untitled - 0 views

www.dpawson.co.uk/...090612.html

ODF specificity quality testability

shared by Paul Merrell on 18 Jun 09 - Cached
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work
  • Most (quality) specifications provide clear instructions using those magic words SHALL, SHALL NOT, and MAY where those words have a defined meaning for an implementor. Paragraphs are clearly identified as either normative or informative. That way an implementor knows what they must and may implement to claim conformance against a specification. This approach has been well established over time as a sensible way for spec writers and implementors to work That is the way quality specifications are written. For example, ISO/IEC's JTC 1 Directives (link to PDF) requires that international standards designed for interoperability "specify clearly and unambiguously the conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." With that clarity, conformance is testable and can provide confidence of interoperability. A suite of tests may be developed and applied to an implementation to determine which tests pass, which fail, and hence arrive at an objective pronouncement on conformance of an implementation against the entirety of the specification.
  • In a quality specification, it should be feasible to select a normative paragraph, identify a conformance test for it, and make a clear statement that this test proves that an implementation meets (or fails to meet) that requirement. Call it a test plan: define the tests (test specification), define the expected set of results, and define what constitutes a "pass" of each test that establishes conformance. The plan then provides the matrix of test spec against requirement. Simple.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Rob Weir of IBM chaired (apology for the misuse of that last word) the formation list and then simply announced what the charter would be rather than seeking consensus among the list participants. As part of this process before that charter was produced and while I still naively believed that consensus was a goal, I sat down with ODF 1.1 and did a paragraph-by-paragraph review for testability. The numbers were quite revealing. I completely reviewed only the first four major sections and found very few clear requirements. The majority were mere statements with no normative language used to identify what was required or optional. Implementors would have to make their own interpretation.
  • It's ironic that the chair viewed as good news the fact that there were far fewer testable paragraphs than he had predicted. But his prediction of 10,000 test cases is probably far closer to how many testable paragraphs there should be; my counts were actually bad news.
  • All of the above leads to the interesting question of just how the chair expects to accomplish much that is useful in regard to ODF conformance testing before the specification is amended to tighten up the language and add clear requirements. The syntax conformity is already handled by validation against the schema, but the semantics are woefully under-specified.
  • Summary: ODF 1.1 isn't verifiable as a specification. From a fairly cursory review of the latest draft, ODF 1.2 will follow the same path. With OASIS now being more demanding regarding conformance requirements on every specification and with ISO/IEC taking a closer interest in liaison with the ODF TC, I find it hard to see how the ODF TC co-chairs can maintain this view toward verification.
Graham Perrin

Next round of ODF vs OOXML… « CyberTech Rambler - 0 views

ctrambler.wordpress.com/...next-round-of-odf-vs-ooxml

shared by Graham Perrin on 12 May 09 - Cached
  • approval of an standard that wasn’t ready
  • no one at ISO listened
  • The whole OOXML thing is a collection of mistakes
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • in the time frame taken to approve it
  • by National Body to trust that BRM has influence
  • by BRM for not attending to every concerns of national bodies
  • for not incorporating BRM resolutions in the published standard
  • OOXML is fundamentally intended to document a format for a pre-existing technology and feature set of recent proprietary systems.
  • years for IS29500 to have a really good debugged version
  • years for ODF to have a good, complete debugged version
  • the nature of big standards
  • sad about OOXML meeting
  • Apple, Oracle and British Library did not even bothered to turn up
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    Found myself blocked from commenting on that blog entry for some reason. Here's the comment I tried to post. @ctrambler "Between vendor-heavy or user-heavy, I choose vendor-heavy. It is after all, a office document format designed for office application. Linking with other systems is important, but it is not the ultimate aim." That statement bespeaks lack of familiarity with what an IT standard *IS.* But it is a lack of familiarity shared by all too many who work on IT standards. Standards are about uniformity, not variability. An international standard must by law specify [i] all characteristics [ii] of an identifiable product or group of products [iii] only in mandatory "must" or "must not" terms. WTDS 135 EC - Asbestos, (World Trade Organization Appellate Body; 12 March 2001; HTML version), para. 66-70, http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm And IT standards in particular must "clearly and unambiguously specify all conformity requirements that are essential to achieve the interoperability." ISO/IEC JTC 1 Directives, (5th Ed., v. 3.0, 5 April 2007) pg. 145, http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0856rev.pdf Absent such specifications, a standard is a standard in name only. A standard is intended to establish a market in standardized goods, creating economic efficiency and competition. This is perhaps most simply illustrated with weights and measures, where a pound of flour must weigh the same regardless which vendor sells the product. But we can also see it in the interoperability context, e.g., with standardized nuts, bolts, and wrenches. Absent sufficient specificity to enable and require interoperability, ODF and OOXML create technical barriers to trade rather than promoting competition. And the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade unambiguously requires that national standardization bodies "shall ensure that technical regulations [includes international standards] are not prepared, adopted or applied with a v
  • Paul Merrell on 13 May 09
     
    (continuation). . And the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade unambiguously requires that national standardization bodies "shall ensure that technical regulations [includes international standards] are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade." http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/17-tbt_e.htm#articleII So while I agree that linking IT systems may not invariably be the ultimate goal, sufficient specificity in an IT standard to do so is in fact a threshold user and legal requirement. Otherwise, one has vendor lock-in and definition of the standard is controlled by the vendor with the largest market share, not the standard itself. Neither ODF nor OOXML met than threshold for eligibility as international standards and still do not. In both cases, national standardization bodies voted to adopt the standards without paying heed to fundamental legal and user requirements.
Gary Edwards

Microsoft Closer on &#0092;'Office Open&#0092;' Blessing - 0 views

www.internetnews.com/...3662681

ecma exchange iso microsoft msoffice oasis odf ooxml opendocument openxml sharepoint vista xml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Opponents to OOXML, which include IBM (Quote)&nbsp;and the Open Document Foundation, have argued that Microsoft's specifications are unwieldy and that the standard application is redundant with the Open Document Format (ODF), which already exists. Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address different needs in the marketplace," the company wrote in an open letter published earlier this month.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Internet News is reporting that Ecma has submitted to the ISO/IEC JTC1 their repsonsess to the 20 "fast track" for Ecma 376 (OOXML) objections.  Nothing but blue skies and steady breeze at their back for our friends at Redmond, according to Ecma's rubber stamper in chief, Jan van den Beld.

    Once again there is that ever present drum beat from Microsoft that ODF can't handle MSOffice and legacy MSOffice features - including but not mentioned the conversion to XML of those infamous billions of binary documents:
    "Microsoft has countered that the OOXML format is valuable because it is closer to Office 2007 and is backwards-compatible with older versions of Office. "Although both ODF and Open XML are document formats, they are designed to address diffe
Gary Edwards

Sun-Bosak "Yes" Vote on ISO approval of MS OOXML - 0 views

www.ibiblio.org/...2007Jul16-081558.eml

bosak ecma iso microsoft oasis odf officeopenxml ooxml opendocument openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.
    • Gary Edwards
      Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
       
      Read it and weep! Sun agrees that ODF was not designed for and is unable to meet these important market requirements
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Sun announces support for ISO approval of MS OOXML as an international standard:

    "We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents."

    Bosak tries to obscure this "YES" vote by pointing to their comments that Microsoft should finally reveal the MS binary secret blueprints with a mapping of the binary blueprints to OOXML. Ha Ha Ha! Now we know what Microsoft paid Sun $2 Billion for in 2004.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Yagotta B. Kidding: The vote was "yes, with comments." That is not, per ISO rules, a "conditional" yes, it's a just-plain-yes. The comments are advisory and regardless of whether they're resolved there's no way to change the "yes" to a "no." Specifically, ISO voting procedure [1] states, "Conditional approval should be submitted as a disapproval vote." Yes, it's confusing. The way these things work, there's no way to vote "unconditional no." The options are "yes, as it currently stands" and "yes, if the following problems are addressed." That makes the enormous effort to get unconditional approval quite curious. [1] JTC1 Directives, 5th Edition, Version 3.0, Section 9.8
Gary Edwards

Standardization by Corporation | Can big application vendors be stopped from corrupting... - 0 views

talkback.zdnet.com/;jsessionid=lpZyhV8gwAfQR3UXAr

bryan cdf ecma ibm iso mary-jo microsoft oasis odf ooxml opendocument sun w3c zdnet

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Standardization by Corporation Maybe i spoke to soon. This just came in from ISO, the resignation letter of the SC34WG1 Chairman who has completed his three year term. There is a fascinating statement at the end of the Martin Bryan letter. "The disparity of rules for PAS, Fast-Track and ISO committee generated standards is fast making ISO a laughing stock in IT circles. The days of open standards development are fast disappearing. Instead we are getting “standardization by corporation”, something I have been fighting against for the 20 years I have served on ISO committees. I am glad to be retiring before the situation becomes impossible..." When corporations join open standards or open source efforts, they arrive with substantial but most welcome financial and expert resources. They also bring marketshare and presence. And, they bring business objectives. They have a plan. As long as the corporate plan is aligned with the open standards - open source community work, all is fine. In fact it's great. For sure though there will come a time when the corporate plan asserts it's direction, and there is possible conflict. At this point, the very same wealth of resources that were cause for celebration can become cause for disappointment and disaster. One of the more troubling things i've noticed is that corporations treat everything as a corporate asset to be traded, bartered and dealt for shareholder advantage and value. This includes patents and interoperability issues which not surprisingly are wrapped into open standards and open source efforts. Rather than embrace the humanitarian – community of shared interest drivers of open standards and open source, corporations naturally plot to get maximum value out of the resources they commit. A primary example of this is Sun's use of OpenOffice, ODF, and an anti trust settlement disaster that left them at the mercy of Microsoft.
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Will ISO follow either the AFNOR or Brittish proposals to merge ODF and OOXML? I think so. If they continue on their current path of big vendor sponsored document wars, ISO will beocme irrelevant. Sooner or later the ISO National Bodies must take back the standards process from corporate corruption and influence. One thing is clear. Neither Microsoft or IBM is about to compromise. IBM has had many chances to improve ODF's interoperability with Microsoft Office and the Office documents, but has been steadfast in their stubborn refusal to concede an inch. Microsoft hides behind their legacy installed base of over 550 million MSOffice desktops. There simply isn't a pragmatic or cost effective way of transitioning the installed base to ODF without either seriously re writing and replacing those applications, or, changing ODF to be compatible. The marketplace is clear on what they intend on doing. Pragmatism will rule. Productivity trumps standards initiatives whenever they are out of sink. In the face of this clear marketplace intent, one would think IBM might compromise on ODF. No way! They are intent on using ODF to force a market wide rip out and replace of MSOffice. Most people assume that there are two opposing groups at war here; the Microsoft OOXML group vs. the IBM ODF group. This isn't an accurate view at all. There is a third, middle group of developers working the treacherous space of conversion - the no man'sland between OOXML MSOffice and ODF OpenOffice. The conversion group know the problems involved, and are actually trying to dliver marketplace facing solutions. The vendors of course are in this war to the bitter end, and could care less about the damage they cause to end users. It's also true that the conversion group seeks to bridge desktop productivity into the larger, highly interoeprable web platform. It's also possible that ISO will chose to merge
Gary Edwards

Wizard of ODF: Interoperability barriers and the List Proposal Vote Deadline on Wednesday - 0 views

www.oasis-open.org/...msg00039.html

harmonization interop interoperability odf ooxml opendocment openxml

shared by Gary Edwards on 07 Mar 08 - Cached
  • this TC does not have the final word on what goes into the ODF 1.2 spec. There is still the OASIS vote, the JTC-1 vote, and the ISO final ballot, with a few other stops along the way. There is also the market's response to what this TC does. Given that no one on this TC has objected to my considerable efforts to raise public concerns with Microsoft's ISO submission and some on this TC have lambasted Microsoft for creating interoperability barriers, why should this TC's members consider themselves exempt from warnings that they have just fallen into precisely the kind of behavior we routinely criticize when it's Microsoft that creates the interoperability barriers. Especially when it's the end users who will pay the price of the non-interoperability?
Gary Edwards

EOOXML objections - Grokdoc - 0 views

www.grokdoc.net/...EOOXML_objections

ecma eooxml imported:del.icio.us iso jtc-1 microsft mooxml oasis odf

shared by Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07 - Cached
  • Gary Edwards on 12 Dec 07
     
    Marbux has done some heroic work here, using the GrokDoc Wiki.  The Title is "EOOXML Objections", and it's primary purpose is to help ISO National Body Memebers evaluate the 0ver 6,000 pages of the Microsoft - ECMA Office Open XML Specification for MSOffice. 

    On January 5th, 2007, Microsoft officially submitted EOOXML to ISO under the fast track rules.  Before EOOXML can hit the fast track though, ISO provides members with a 30 day "Contradition Review Phase".   During this brief phase, ISO NB's (national standards body members) muct evaluate the proposal and post their allegations concerning contradictions and inconsistencies with other ISO products - like ODF.

    What Marbux is assembling here is a one stop shop for ISO NB's strugglign to understand the issues at stake.  It's incredible wha the has accomplished in such a short time.  But then, the clock is ticking.  February 5th is a hard and unmovable deadline. 

    The basic contradiction is thatt EOOXML is a subset of ISO existing product, ODF.  Both attempt to do the exact same thing:  provide an XML file format for desktop productivity environments such as MSOffice, OpenOffice, and WordPerfect Office.  What seriously differentiates the two is that ODF was designed expressly to be a universal file format, application and platform independent, able to transition across many different information domains connecting the legacy of desktop productivity to near everything else.  MOOXML on the other hand was designed for MSOffice and the legacy of billions of binary documents that only Micrsoft knows the secrets to converting to XML.  As such, MOOXML is designed to be application and platform bound, with these proprietary dependencies written right into the specification.

    One of the more important elements of the Marbux arguments is that the OpenDocument Foundation's daVinci Plugin and InfoSet Engine - API prove conclusively
Jesper Lund Stocholm

Microsoft Office 2010 Engineering : Open XML: One Year In - 1 views

blogs.technet.com/...open-xml-one-year-in.aspx

shared by Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 Nov 09 - Cached
  • What is noteworthy about this investment is that we’re working closely with members of JTC 1 SC 34 ( the standards body responsible with Open XML maintenance ) to identify and resolve backward compatibility issues related to this new functionality.
    • Jesper Lund Stocholm
      Jesper Lund Stocholm on 23 Nov 09
       
      I think it is worth noting, that quite a few of the independant experts of WG4 have argued against usage of ISO-dates in T.
1 - 11 of 11
Showing 20▼ items per page