Re: [WIDGETS] Zip Support (request for comments)

>
> 1) OPC spec attempts to preserve all of the platform specific
> (particularly Windows-specific) extensions to ZIP so that they round-trip
> successfully. I don't remember the details here, but clearly one can
> understand why MS would produce a spec which would optimize that particular
> workflow. Because of the approach taken in the OPC spec, it takes several
> pages to document the clarifications in OPC's use of ZIP versus the original
> Zip appnote.
>
If OPC defines a Zip archive that is currently created natively by Windows
(Vista) and is interoperable on a Mac, on Linux, and on mobile devices, then
I think we should seriously consider it (just the stuff related to Zip,
nothing else related to OOXML). From first glance, it seems like a good
solution for the widget spec: a clearly articulated and complete technical
solution describing what bits of the Zip appnote widget engines need to
support, and a solution that describes what current OSs are producing. Also,
OPC's zip conformance criteria seems to align with ODF's Zip conformance
requirements, but for me OPC is just a bit more clear.

Out of interest, what platforms is OCF's Zip conformance criteria based on?
Does it conflict with the production of Zip files on any platforms? My
reluctance with OCF as this point is whether to trust that the production of
Zip archives that conform to OCF will be usable on multiple platforms (and
not just compatible with OCF reading systems). I guess I want to be sure
that OCF packages actually match the production of Zip archives by
Window's/MacOS/Linux when a user manually creates a Zip archive using
OS-native tools, and that those archives are able to be opened across all
OSs.

> 2) Last I looked, MS did not have a separate spec for OPC but instead
> defined this technology not once but twice in both the Office Open XML spec
> and the XML Paper Specification. (Maybe this has changed)
>
I'm not sure; either way, like I already said, the spec seems to define
pretty much the same thing as OCF in regards to Zip conformance. However,
OPC seems to be more clear that OCF in terms of conformance requirements.

> 3) Open Office XML failed to get approval in its most recent vote at ISO.
> I don't keep track of whether ECMA has approved Open Office XML. I assume it
> has, otherwise it wouldn't have been sent to ISO. Whatever, you need to
> check on where Open Office XML stands as a referenceable "standard".
>
I am sure the ISO member countries had very good reasons to reject Open
Office XML in the previous round (at least from what I read). AFAIK,
Microsoft will make another ISO bid in feb of 2008. OOXML was approved by
ECMA in September 2006, so it guess that makes it kinda "referenceable".

> 4) If you go the OPC route, you will want to make sure MS provides a
> specific covenant not to sue over patent claims that might have. I believe
> they have issued a covenant not to sue on Open Office XML, but that's
> different than providing a covenant not to sue over technology extracted
> from one of their specs.
>
I'm no lawyer, but how is this different from us basing the spec on OCF? are
you saying that IBM and Adobe, or anyone else involved in the creation of
OCF, have a covenant not to sue over technology extracted from one of their
specs?

Marcos
-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au