Please discuss OOXML validation here.

Very interesting. Very worrying!

Thanks for posting this, Inigo. I was also surprised to see that our standards body, the BSI, was conducting this process in such an open fashion. :)

Thanks.

Hi! Nice site!

Did you find out if the compatibility support for preserving attributes of unrecognized extensions was fixed in Office 2007 Service Pack 1? I know there were some other fixes, but I haven't found out how to check on this one.

I mean the problem identified here:
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/blog/...-extensibility#c130

and that you had confirmed yourself.

Never mind, I found my answer. It isn't a bug after all, according to ECMA-379 Part 5 Clause 9.1.3. PreserveElements and PreserveAttributes are defined to be hints, not requirements. I captured the definitive text in my comment at
http://orcmid.com/blog/2008/02/ooxml-odf-h...1235882653159917547
with lede "Oops! Not a bug"

Hi Inigo

A couple of months ago, you said at http://surguy.net/articles/ooxml-validatio...echnical-review.xml:

"Approximately 300 of the examples are in error - more than 10%. While a certain number of errors is understandable in any large specification, the sheer volume of errors indicates that the specification has not been through a rigorous technical review before becoming an Ecma standard, and therefore may not be suitable for the fast-track process to becoming an ISO standard."

( by the way AFAIK, the text with the corrected examples is still not available to proper review and validation by NBs )

I would like to ask you ... do you still believe that "[DIS 29500] may not be suitable for the fast-track process to becoming an ISO standard" ?

Thank you, and greetings from Argentina ( my national body abstained, due to lack of interest/expertise in XML :-(

     Carlos Martel

Hi Carlos,

I'm not happy that DIS 29500 is being fast-tracked: I think it's too large and complex to be dealt with effectively through the fast track mechanism. Nor do I think that ODF was suitable for the PAS process. The PAS process, like the fast-track process, means that there is a relatively short time for review and change.

An interesting question is how the fast-track/PAS processes could be altered to prevent more such large specifications being passed through them. One way would be to establish a maximum page count, above which specs wouldn't be eligible. This has the problem that like any fixed metric, it can be gamed. OOXML, for example, has lots of duplication of definitions that bulks out its pagecount, but some would claim that this increases its readability. And for complex topics, it's almost always better to have longer explanations than shorter ones - many of the OOXML dispositions that were accepted added additional text, because they were providing more explicit definitions of features. It would be undesirable to discourage full explanations.

Another method would simply be for national bodies to vote against OOXML on the grounds of its size and unsuitability for fast-tracking. Personally, I'm not in favour of this - I'd rather have NBs vote based on the current merits or otherwise of the specification, rather than the process by which it was submitted. (Note that if a similar approach had been taken for ODF, then that might well have been rejected based on size and time to review; which many people would have considered to be a bad decision)

So, any suggestions as to how to improve the fast-track/PAS process?

Inigo

Regarding mpeg audio (mp3) and mpeg2,

It also says "Add a table with a minimal number of reference standard
formats" which to me reads as if they're saying that those are the minimal
number of formats that an implementor should have (eg a MUST).

Do we know that the "should" in this case is control language? It
seems that the words chosen around this mean MUST.

Thanks for your explanation

"I'd rather have NBs vote based on the current merits or otherwise of the specification"

I believe that the complain about the +6000 page size has to do with that:

there is no time to guarantee that DIS 29500 has the technical merits to be an ISO standard.

Do you believe that this specification ( what ever it final text is ... because still we don't have a text to review ) has the technical merits to be an ISO standard?

"So, any suggestions as to how to improve the fast-track/PAS process?"

Yes, ban organizations like ECMA, that show a deep lack of respect of standards, standardization and national bodies, throwing to ISO poor edited and not properly reviewed specifications like DIS 29500.

( i don't agree with the argument: because ODF was fast-tracked , any beast that is throwed to ISO must be fast-tracked ... it sound me like the Durusau recent argumentation to approve DIS 29500: because Microsoft is being good and open we must accept *now* this draft )

( i wouldn't compare ODF with DIS 29500, we are talking of a 10th of order of page size, and a properly pre-reviewed specification.. in an open and transparent process , in an open and serious organization: OASIS )

( i know, i'm being extremist, but some people is gaming with our standards, and i, as a final user, don't like that )

  Carlos
   Carlos

Matthew,

Yes, I'm certain that "should" was the intent of the BRM; there was quite a bit of discussion around that exact point. I'm happy that it comes across in the text as well.

Carlos,

I'm not going to give any opinions on the spec until I've talked to my national body about it.

I'm certainly not arguing that ODF was accepted therefore OOXML should be; I agree that's a poor argument. What I'm saying is that any reforms to the process should make it better able to cope with ODF as well as OOXML - which is why I'm not convinced that banning Ecma is the right solution (as well as being difficult in practice).

Inigo

when they cheat us on our counts what they are doing is punishing hard work, I used to bring into our office 10 times the amount of postage sales as the other three carriers combined, but when I finally got it thru my head that I was not going to get compensated any more than the other carriers I quit trying so hard. Its hard to stay enthused when you know you're going to get cheated out of your hard work. Usually when a business is having the problems the PO is its because of POOR mgmt. With very few exceptions PO mgmt stinks from top to bottom. I heard today the none of the top managers have ever worked in any of our crafts. Anyone who has ever carried a route would have known that the LLV's should have been built with front wheel drive, and a window in the rear.laptop battery
laptop batteries

chicorolrel

when u get that done u use the rench at the bike in the front clike on the thing that looks like a skinnie bath tub then stick it on the motorcycle then click on the light then click on the skinnie bath tub thingy and u have a lite turn one the bike stick a small bent stick in the hole on garage bye it i ment and put the mirror on it then go to the window click every wear until u look in it use ur bononculars to zoom in on that peice of paper u'll find numbers write it down thewn go back to the bike and punch in the codes then go to the lock and open it and grab the purpel chip go to the remote take out the grey toshiba pa3451u battery,toshiba m70 battery,toshiba pa3383u battery chip and stick in the purple then go to door the and use hte controller then u'll see a thing use the paper and the blocks when u get that done it'll spell help press the button and u'll find a golden motorcycle key take it {wrning using the blocks takes a long time so plz don't get frustrated} go to the bike put in the golden key and click the rite handle bar press number sixk button to start it and ur done it too a wile but u beat it hey wit my help if ur readen dis. if i missed anything then eamil me ecoole_1@hotmail.com