[odf-discuss] Re: OOXML stuff on /.

[marbux]

On Jan 15, 2008 9:11 PM, <robert_weir at us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
>
> > Got a link for the ECMA responses?
> >
> > -Damon
>
> So far as I can tell, the Ecma responses are currently only available on
> Ecma's password-protected web site.  I have not seen the report come
> officially into JTC1 yet.
>

That figures. The NB comments accompanying the last ballot are no longer
available as a public download from JTC 1. They were at <
http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0904.zip>. But that page is 404 now. Now
I wish I had kept my copy.

The transparency on DIS-29500 really sucks. But unfortunately, the Agreement
on Technical Barriers to Trader only requires transparency for Members, i.e.,
the member national governments.  But notably, it does not forbid more
transparency.

Given that ANSI-INCITS are acting as the U.S. NB through power delegated
(unlawfully, by my research) by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, see <http://ts.nist.gov/Standards/Conformity/ansimou.cfm>, they
*should* be available by Freedom of Information Act request directed to
NIST. And since time is short, they "should" be available on an expedited
basis. On the other hand, agencies often abuse the expedited processing
provision of the FOIA and agencies can always delay things by appealing even
if you take them to court to get an order for expedited processing. I
suspect that NIST would at least initially say "it's ANSI's responsibility,
not ours" on this one.

The transparency issue is one that the standards reform movement needs to
deal with. DIS-29500 sure is developing as the poster child for standards
reform. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20080115/d171da1c/attachment-0001.htm