[dsdl-discuss] Re: Options re timetable

I wonder whether T Berners-Lee's new ideas for an incremental approach
to HTML evolution (http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/166) -
wrongheaded as it may be - is the sort of application where DSDL Part 9
may well be _very_ pertinent.

I'm not sure whether public interest is that meaningful a determininant
of worth of standards activity - where was the 'public interest' in RNG
compact before it appeared?

- Alex.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org
> [mailto:dsdl-discuss-bounce@dsdl.org] On Behalf Of Martin Bryan
> Sent: 31 October 2006 18:52
> To: dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org
> Subject: [dsdl-discuss] Re: Options re timetable
>
> OK Francis, so lets call their bluff and abandon Part 9 for
> lack of public interest
>
> Martin
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francis Cave" <francis@franciscave.com>
> To: <dsdl-discuss@dsdl.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 11:48 AM
> Subject: [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)
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> 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=unsubscribe)