|
Size: 1873
Comment:
|
← Revision 8 as of 2015-11-29 21:27:03 ⇥
Size: 2403
Comment: converted to 1.6 markup
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| NUUG wishes to raise concerns about confilcting standards to the proposed ISO/IEC DIS 29500 Office Open XML OOXML specification. | Sent by NUUGs leader Petter Reinholdtsen to Bjørnhild Sæterøy at standard.no 2007-01-30 10:09. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| OOXML is in conflict with ISO/IEC 26300:2006 Open Document Format standard. The two specifications in general cover the same subject, namely office documents for text processing, spreadsheets and presentation. They both aim to be a general solution in these areas, and they both use XML as the underlying engine, but they use different markup. | NUUG wishes to raise concerns regarding conflicts between ISO/IEC 26300:206 (OpenDocument Format for Office Applications, ODF) and the proposed ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML, OOXML). |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| As the two specifications overlap in functionality, OOXML is in conflict with ODF, and OOXML thus duplicates a lot of the work done in ODF. Conflicts occur when two specifications have different ways to implement almost the same functionality, this can also be called overlapping. Duplication of work is counterproductive, it means duplicate work on producing and maintaining th standard and also confusion in the marketplace, where producers of documents need to produce two versions with each of the standards, with possible small differences, and when document producers fail to do the double versions, users of the documents need to have both standards available. When users fail to do that, we have a situation of miscommunication. Having two much conflicting and overlapping standards will thus weaken the business case for each of the standards - and ISO and IEC should therefore avoid as much as possible to have a dual competing standards and instead produce one standard that by concensus can fulfill the needs of the market. It is much stronger to have only one standard in the area, that everybody can agree on, and standards developers, application producers, document producers and document readers all can support. | The two specifications cover the same subject, namely office documents for text processing, spreadsheets and presentation. They both aim to be a general solution in these areas, and they both use XML as the underlying format, but they use different mark-up. |
| Line 7: | Line 7: |
| We thus advise that the OOXML ballot be stopped, and that the OOXML people get together with the ODF people to enhance the ODF standard for the needs of OOXML. | As the two specifications overlap in functionality, OOXML is in conflict with ODF, and OOXML thus duplicates a lot of the work done in ODF. Conflicts occur when two specifications have different ways of implementing almost the same functionality, i.e. they overlap. Duplication of work is counterproductive; it means duplicate work on producing and maintaining the standards and creates confusion in the marketplace where producers of documents have to produce two versions, one for each standard with possibly small differences, and when failing to do so (and they will) effectively forces consumers of documents to have software for both standards available. Where consumers do not have software for both standards available, miscommunication will occur. Having two very similar and overlapping standards will thus weaken the business case for both of them. ISO and IEC should therefore avoid, to the greatest extent possible, to have two overlapping standards and instead produce one standard that by consensus can fulfill the needs of both and the needs of the marked. One standard will have the possibility of obtaining strong support from developers, document producers and document consumers alike, whereas two will inevitably force one link in the chain to declare support for one over the other which in turn can only hurt end-users. We therefore advise that the OOXML ballot be stopped, and that the OOXML group get together with the ODF group to enhance the ODF standard to accommodate OOXML requirements. OOXML is developed by ECMA and ODF by OASIS. It can therefore be difficult to find neutral, common, ground. ISO and IEC needs to maintain the ISO ODF standard and has well-established procedures for resolving conflicts and obtaining consensus. We therefore propose that the work proceeds within the JTC 1/SC 34 committee. |
Sent by NUUGs leader Petter Reinholdtsen to Bjørnhild Sæterøy at standard.no 2007-01-30 10:09.
NUUG wishes to raise concerns regarding conflicts between ISO/IEC 26300:206 (OpenDocument Format for Office Applications, ODF) and the proposed ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Office Open XML, OOXML).
The two specifications cover the same subject, namely office documents for text processing, spreadsheets and presentation. They both aim to be a general solution in these areas, and they both use XML as the underlying format, but they use different mark-up.
As the two specifications overlap in functionality, OOXML is in conflict with ODF, and OOXML thus duplicates a lot of the work done in ODF. Conflicts occur when two specifications have different ways of implementing almost the same functionality, i.e. they overlap. Duplication of work is counterproductive; it means duplicate work on producing and maintaining the standards and creates confusion in the marketplace where producers of documents have to produce two versions, one for each standard with possibly small differences, and when failing to do so (and they will) effectively forces consumers of documents to have software for both standards available. Where consumers do not have software for both standards available, miscommunication will occur. Having two very similar and overlapping standards will thus weaken the business case for both of them.
ISO and IEC should therefore avoid, to the greatest extent possible, to have two overlapping standards and instead produce one standard that by consensus can fulfill the needs of both and the needs of the marked. One standard will have the possibility of obtaining strong support from developers, document producers and document consumers alike, whereas two will inevitably force one link in the chain to declare support for one over the other which in turn can only hurt end-users.
We therefore advise that the OOXML ballot be stopped, and that the OOXML group get together with the ODF group to enhance the ODF standard to accommodate OOXML requirements.
OOXML is developed by ECMA and ODF by OASIS. It can therefore be difficult to find neutral, common, ground. ISO and IEC needs to maintain the ISO ODF standard and has well-established procedures for resolving conflicts and obtaining consensus. We therefore propose that the work proceeds within the JTC 1/SC 34 committee.