[odf-discuss] Singapore ODF advocacy
worldlabel at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 18:01:37 EST 2007
>What is the topic being debated currently? The ballot on OOXML ended on
Sept 2nd. You won't >have the final revised text of OOXML until after the
BRM in February. So what does "winning" look like >at this stage in the
Waiting to get a reply and will forward.
I have a question: One thing the BRM meetings wont discuss from these
comments/resolutions is the ones related to ISO policies, and goals like the
Belguim comment: http://www.dis29500.org/category/countries/belgium/ which
in this case has classified as "Fluff". Please correct me if I am wrong
It seems to be only about the technical aspects. Do these comments on ISO
policies/goals, patents, duplicate fields also get resolved and when?
On Nov 28, 2007 10:14 AM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:
> What is the topic being debated currently? The ballot on OOXML ended on
> Sept 2nd. You won't have the final revised text of OOXML until after the
> BRM in February. So what does "winning" look like at this stage in the
> What I know some NB's are doing right now, include activities such as:
> 1. Prioritizing their own comments from Sept 2nd. Which ones are
> "must fix items" versus which ones are "would be nice to have". The idea is
> to develop in advance a position for the BRM, so a "No" vote would be
> maintained unless all of the "must fix" items are satisfactorily addressed.
> 2. Reading through the comments of other NB's from Sept 2nd., to see
> if any of them are also "must fix" items. An defect can certainly be
> critical to a NB even if that NB did not originate the comment.
> 3. Deciding whether to attend the BRM and February and proposing a
> delegation to send. Preliminary delegation lists are due to SC34
> Secretariat by December 11th or an NB risks not being able to attend the
> 4. Reading through Ecma's proposed resolutions to comments and
> deciding if these were addressed adequately. Ecma has responded to 662
> comments so far, around 20% of the overall count. Your NB commitee should
> have made these 662 Ecma proposals available to you. If not, you should ask
> about it. If you experience any stonewalling, let me know and I may be able
> to help.
> I've been reading through the 662 responses, and there isn't much here.
> It looks like they went after the typographical errors in this batch. So
> nothing controversial. The major issues remain.
> The formula issues are discussed in my blog entry:
> The US submitted those, and a few other formula related comments as part
> of its Sept 2nd. contribution.
> odf-discuss-bounces at opendocumentfellowship.com wrote on 11/28/2007
> 01:12:16 AM:
> > Russell Ossendryver wrote:
> > > He has requested: would appreciate any more info or interesting fact
> > > that I have missed out (eg: I just noticed that OOXML has problems
> > > with formulae) or notes that provides us stronger ammo to defeat the
> > > MS team
> > I'm going to my nations advisory group (tech advisory on the vote), so
> > I'll second the request for any new information, particularly any
> > information about ECMAs proposed dispositions.
> > What are these formulae problems?
> > Thanks,
> > .Matthew Cruickshank
> > _______________________________________________
> > odf-discuss mailing list
> > odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
> > http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/mailman/listinfo/odf-discuss
> odf-discuss mailing list
> odf-discuss at opendocumentfellowship.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the odf-discuss