Re: [WIDGETS] Using Zip based on OOXML-OPC, was [WIDGETS] Zip Support (request for comments)

On 10/8/07, Jon Ferraiolo <jferrai@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>  Marcos,
> Looks good, but why is it necessary or desirable to refer to the OOXML-OPC
> specification?
>
No, it's not necessary; but I believe it is important to explore all the
alternatives in detail before settling on a solution. Regarding
desirability, OOXML-OPC is the only spec that I've seen (thus far) that
specifies a decent subset of Zip in any significant detail.

> It's been a long time since I looked at that, but my impression was that
> the only real "value-add" of the OOXML-OPC write-up on ZIP was a bunch of
> detail that describes requirements on user agents about various
> platform-specific round-tripping provisions in the ZIP specification, and I
> don't think it is either necessary or desirable to put that burden on
> software developers who want to support the Widgets spec.
>
I'm still not convinced about OOXML-OPC has any platform specific stuff in
it. I am quite certain that I will be able to open my Office2007 files in
Mac Office 2008... However, I did some tests with Office2007 and seems that
they don't fully conform to OOXML-OPC (I was unable to open a Zip64 archive,
but that *may* be 7Zip's fault). I have not been inclined enough to create a
document that is over 4gb is size to test if office can actually write a
Zip64 archive.

> I would also be hesitant about normatively referencing the OOXML-OPC
> specification because of possibilities that other features from OOXML leak
> indirectly into the ZIP description. In general, it is dangerous to refer to
> a single chapter or appendix out of a much larger specification (and they
> don't get much larger than the OOXML spec).
>

I do agree that making implementers troll through OOXML-OPC might be
painful... even though I was only referring to about 10 pages out of 120. I
don't know about the rest of OOXML, but I still think that MS did a good job
specifying the technical aspects of Zip in OOXML-OPC. (a Google search of
"OOXML-OPC" and "evil" yields no results;-))

As I mentioned before, there are also IP issues to consider. The OOXML
> specification was not your usual open standards process where a group of
> companies work together to develop a specification. The OOXML specification
> was a special deal between ECMA and Microsoft where the charter for the ECMA
> committee was to define the first version of OOXML as whatever was generated
> by MSOffice ( i.e., the spec is required to match the software), whereas
> the usual standards process is that the software has to match the spec. The
> whole OOXML standards process has been unusual, so I would be especially
> careful regarding IP issues because they might also be unusual. As far as I
> know, Microsoft has not submitted OOXML-OPC to the W3C as a formal
> submission and therefore IP grants aren't guaranteed to W3C, even if
> something has been done with ECMA. (See
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010208/submission.html - notice the
> mention of IPR claims in the second sentence.) Whatever, if the WAF
> committee wants to refer to OOXML-OPC, it is incumbent to involve W3C legal
> in the process to make sure it's OK to make such a reference.
>

There is no formal decision by WAF to refer to OOXML-OPC (I'm really just
interested in getting feedback - yours has been extremely helpful, btw!).
The point is to discuss the techno-political aspects. Out of interest, does
that mean that references to ECMAScript also puts everyone at risk?

Kind regards,
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au