[dsdl-discuss] Re: Options re timetable

I agree with Alex. I think it would be wrong to "shoot the messenger". The
fact is that staff at ISO Central Secretariat are simply implementing ISO
policy for which they are not personally to blame. If we don't like the
policy, we have to argue for a change through our National Bodies.

Quite frankly, the reason I'm late with editing DSDL Part 9 has nothing to
do with either ODF or OOXML and has everything to do with the fact that this
Part hasn't generated much interest - so maybe ISO have a point. Yes, I need
to get a revised draft out for discussion and second CD ballot, but Part 9
also needs a commitment from someone to develop a pilot implementation in
Xerces or some other well-known DTD parser. Without that commitment, I may
be able to steer the text through to IS... but what for?

Francis Cave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org
> [mailto:dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org]On Behalf Of Alex Brown
> Sent: 31 October 2006 11:32
> To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org
> Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Re: Options re timetable
>
>
> Martin, All,
>
> Might it not be more politic to ask them to cut us some slack? ... The
> fast tracking is only a contributory factor to the perceived slowness of
> standardisation. The real problem is that we're a small volunteer force,
> with other commitments. If OOXML was taken elsewhere, would it really
> allow us to keep to ISO's (probably unrealistic) schedule?
>
> I think it might be better to point out (as you did to Ken) that we're
> doing good work, we're stretched, and we're the crucial WG through which
> such things as ODF/OOXML need to progress. We could point out that DSDL
> even "as is" is already a basis for ODF and the re-drafting of OOXML.
>
> In other words I think our position should be "we're special - support
> us". I think we will benefit, in the long run, from the attention OOXML
> (etc) generates.
>
> If that approach doesn't work, we could then introduce a more militant
> note along the lines you suggest ....
>
> - Alex.
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org
> > [mailto:dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org] On Behalf Of Martin Bryan
> > Sent: 31 October 2006 07:56
> > To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org
> > Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Options re timetable
> >
> > Dear DSDLers
> >
> > Given the pressure we are currently being put under by
> > national standards bodies and the ISO Central Secretariat to
> > deliver the delayed parts of DSDL I propose we send the
> > following unambiguous message to ISO CS and BSI, with a copy
> > to Microsoft:
> >
> > Until such time as SC34 WG1 are able to complete their work
> > on ISO 19757 to the satisfaction of national standards bodies
> > and the ISO Central Secretariat we will be unable to waste
> > any more time discussing fast-track standards, such as ODF,
> > or advising those preparing to use the fast-track procedure,
> > such as OOXML, which have taken up far too much of our
> > valuable discussion and work time over the past 18 months.
> >
> > Anyone object to me sending this?
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> > --
> > DSDL members discussion list
> >
> > To unsubscribe, please send a message with the command
> > "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
> > (mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)
> >
> >
> --
> DSDL members discussion list
>
> To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
> command "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
> (mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=subscribe)
>

--
DSDL members discussion list
To unsubscribe, please send a message with the
command  "unsubscribe" to dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org
(mailto:dsdl-discuss-request@dsdl.org?Subject=unsubscribe)