[dsdl-discuss] Re: Synchronization of

Ken,

All differences are caused by two things:

Q1: Is OASIS a "JTC 1 designated maintenance group of the submitter
in accordance with JTC 1 rules" as shown in 14.4.3.14 of the direcrives?

Q2: If the answer to Q1 is positive, what does "Its maintenance will
be handled either by JTC 1 or by JTC 1 designated maintenance group of
the PAS Submitter in accordance with JTC 1 rules." mean?

You appear to belive that the answer to Q1 is Yes. I do not know when
and how the decision was made. (Had I new this, I would have tried to
make Japan vote No to ODF.) Clause 14.4.3.14 clearly says that "Its
maintenance will be handled either the PAS Submitter in accordance with
JTC 1 rules." Why is the maintenance not handled by JTC1? I have seen
no justifications yet.

Q2 is even more debatable. Does this sentence mean that OASIS will
create a defect report, draft technical corrigendum, and technical
corrigendum, as shown in 8.1.5 of the directives? Or, does it mean that
OASIS can do whatever they would like to do? For example, OASIS might want to
incorporate changes only to future versions of ODF, without revising
ODF 1.0 of OASIS or ODF 1.0 of ISO/IEC.

Here is the reason that I care so much. Harmonization of ODF and OOXML
is an important issue. As I see it, neither OASIS nor ECMA is the right
place for such harmonization. If SC34 is not even allowed to create
technical corrigenda, they certainly cannot create addenda to ODF or
OOXML. Thus, SC34 will become a lame duck, the only thing it can do
is to say "Yes" or "No" to ODF or OOXML. No attempts for the
harmonization will happen anywhere in the world.

Cheers,

-- 
MURATA Makoto <murata@hokkaido.email.ne.jp>
--
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)