Partager via

DIS 29500 Recommended for Approval by The United States V1 Committee

  • Article

I just saw this come through in email, and would point you to Doug Mahugh's blog that the US V1 technical committee voted today regarding DIS 29500. I wrote about the V1 committee and the US position back before the Sept. 2 ballot here and here. I also posted on the Executive Board decision for INCITS here.

Comments

  • Anonymous
    March 07, 2008
    PingBack from http://msdnrss.thecoderblogs.com/2008/03/07/dis-29500-recommended-for-approval-by-the-united-states-v1-committee/

  • Anonymous
    March 07, 2008
    You can make a puppet bark but it would never be your dog. What a shame.

  • Anonymous
    March 09, 2008
    The OOXML should be rejected by ISO because it will create dual-standards.

  • Anonymous
    March 10, 2008
    I notice that Arnaud Le Hors (who works for IBM, but is writing in a blog where he says the opinions expressed do not necessarily represent his employer's positions, strategies or opinions) has just written an article entitled "Conflict of Interest", where he points out that the committee that produced this recommendation has a significant number of members with commercial ties to Microsoft: http://lehors.wordpress.com/2008/03/09/conflict-of-interest/ I'm also interested in the information that the US V1 committee used in forming its opinion.  The announcement came through on Friday, 7 March; was the BRM-modified text of DIS 29500 available at that point?   I notice that the files posted by Alex Brown on his blog ( http://adjb.net/ ) have interesting date stamps:

  • 0989.pdf and 0990.pdf (edited notes of the meeting and resolutions of the meeting) have date stamps of Thursday, 6 March 2008;
  • 09891.pdf (Result of proposed disposition of comments (SC 34 N 980)) has a creation date stamp of Monday, 10 March 2008.   [As an aside, the zip file 0989_reference_docs.zip contains some March 2008 date stamps, but the fidelity and authenticity of these date stamps these are inconclusive; in any case, the files in this archive, especially the ones with late-BRM or post-BRM date stamps, make for entertaining reading.]   So my question is, was the fully-updated DIS 29500 document available to the US V1 committee members at the time they made their technical recommendation? /techno-confusion

  • Anonymous
    March 10, 2008
    [quote]So my question is, was the fully-updated DIS 29500 document available to the US V1 committee members at the time they made their technical recommendation? [/quote] That is not needed as they have already voted on the draft and can now vote on the draft plus the improvements accepted by the BRM. Since the vote on the draft without improvements was already nearly 2/3 in favour before and even OASIS ODF editor Patrick Durusau this time around changed his vote to approval  there was never much doubt about the outcome.

  • Anonymous
    March 11, 2008
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    March 12, 2008
    Waleed, you said that ISO should reject OOXML because it would create "dual-standards".   Those of you who have voiced this opinion may (or may not) be interested in the comment on this point by Jan van der Beld's blog.  From 1991 to April 2007, he was Secretary general of ECMA, and knows ECMA's and ISO's standards approaches in utmost detail. Here is what he wrote on Feb 18: "Moreover, competing standards in ICT are more the rule than the exception: see the study by Prof. Blind in Germany: An economic analysis of parallel standards illustrated using the example of the Ecma OpenXML Standard and the ISO/IEC ODF Standard, August 2007. Free copies are available in English and German. Contact: http://www.blogger.com/Knut.Blind@TU-Berlin.de%20"

  • Anonymous
    March 12, 2008
    Techno-confusion: You are clearly trying to make a distinction between changes and improvements to DIS29500.  (Conjecture -- perhaps because you don't like the changes that were adopted at the BRM???) Please consider the following:

  • It was the purpose of the BRM to decide on improvements
  • The decision as to whether any proposed change (from ECMA or whatever) is an improvement was made by the BRM itself
  • The "changes" submitted by ECMA received 98.7% approval, and are thus "improvements", according to the rules of the BRM I hope this clears things up.