| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballotrelated news: USA will not object to fast-track ballotPosted Jan 30, 2007 18:05 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179)In reply to: related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot by stevenj Parent article: FFII on proposed OpenXML adoption
According to Jennifer Garner, the INCITS executive board decided not to respond (i.e. not to object) to the fast-track ballot for OOXML. So they will not object, even though ALL comments submitted on time (and probably most of the not submitted on time - I didn't check them all) were against the fast-track ? Good job, INCITS.
(Log in to post comments)
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 30, 2007 23:24 UTC (Tue) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] You are asking them too much. The EOOXML is all way "fast-track" - even review phase included. It took 2+ weeks for community to perform some "skin deep" analysis of the spec. So now INCITS has to review in rush all sent in comments, verify their validity and make an official objection? All that in under one week???
It was all logical decision on their part to skip the "fast-track" part of ECMA in favor of the "5 month" period in ISO. ISO isn't ECMA - the committees there can go on for years discussing any particular (and not any particular) submission for standard.
Since more or less all interested parties are presented in ISO (e.g. EU/Asia which are very interested in having solid open document standard) would press M$ to the end. Especially since overlaps with existing ISO standard are so blunt. And if M$ would fail address all raised issues in time - do not expect EOOXML becoming a standard in any foreseeable future.
related news: USA will not object to fast-track ballot Posted Jan 30, 2007 23:56 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link] I admit that I don't really understand the standartization process and the relationship between the involved organizations. However, as far as I could tell, INCITS is in a position to say whether they aprove the fast-track process or not.
So, it makes no sense at all. Unless I am losing my mind, not having enough time to review the proposal and the comments is a damn good sign that fast-track is not suitable. This is basic common sense.
If you are being asked to support or not something that you do not understand, and silence means that you agree, the most logical action is not to support it until you have had the time to form an informed opinion.
|
|
||||||||||||