Na 1ª reunião/2008 abriu-se inscrições para o Grupo de Trabalho 2, que trata do OOXML, dentro da CE-21:034.00, na ABNT. O objetivo do trabalho do GT2 nesta fase é analisar as respostas da
ECMA ao grupo de comentários enviados ao ISO/IEC DIS 29500, priorizando a análise das respostas aos comentários brasileiros.
O objetivo do trabalho do GT2 nesta fase é analisar as respostas da ECMA ao grupo de comentários enviados ao ISO/IEC DIS 29500, priorizando a análise das respostas aos comentários brasileiros. São mais de 2000 comentários. O representante da M$ já sinalizou qual vai ser a posição que defenderão no dia 19, data da reunião decisiva do comitê executivo. Disse que se o Brasil não conseguir concluir as análises não deverá opinar. Importante lembrar que isso não é decisão do GT2, mas da CE.
O engraçado é que quem deve responder as objeções levadas pelo Brasil é a micro$oft. A questão é objetiva. Quantas das objeções ao padrão OOXML que o Brasil arrolou, a micro$oft conseguiu provar que não procede? O OOXML incorporou as mudanças necessárias? Tem como provar? Alguém já aplicou as milhares de páginas do OOXML no desenvolvimento de uma solução que não seja na plataforma windows?
Quais foram seus resultados?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
me disculpe a escritura ( sou de Argentina )
>O objetivo do trabalho do GT2 nesta fase
>é analisar as respostas da
>ECMA ao grupo de comentários enviados ao
>ISO/IEC DIS 29500, priorizando a análise
>das respostas aos comentários brasileiros
cuidado con isso, Microsoft(ECMA) tem feito propostas pra cambiar OOXML sem conhecimento do NBs, por exemplo resposta 467 deste documento [1].
>Disse que se o Brasil não conseguir >concluir as análises não deverá opinar. >Importante lembrar que isso não é >decisão do GT2, mas da CE.
nao ha tempo material pra fazer semelhante analise. A tremenda cantidade de correcoes ( +2300 paginas ) demostran que o fast-tracking nao e apropiado pra este borrador de especificacao, assim como foi indicado por varios NBs:
PE-0001 (Peru/INDECOPI): "...the size of the document makes an appropriate evaluation in the short time available very difficult. A number of errors, incompatibilities, voids and access and intellectual property restrictions that could be verified point to the need of a more detailed revision of the document in order to be a good international standard. The technical committee encourage ECMA members to present their proposal through the normal ISO standard development process, in order to enable an open discussion, an appropriate revision of all requirements and an adequate correction of all issues."
NO-0002 (Norway/SN): "...as currently drafted, DIS 29500 covers many areas that are not directly related to one another. This makes it difficult to review by National Body experts, difficult to implement, and difficult to assess compatibility."
NO-0003 (Norway/SN): "Rework into a much more concise standard: the text should be shortened considerably, through the removal of non-normative text (into annexes), the avoidance of redundancy and other means.
Justification: The text of DIS 29500 is too voluminous to be reliably reviewed by National Body experts, or for implementations to be assessed for compatibility. It appears to be unnecessarily long, combining normative text with copious examples and containing a lot of redundancy."
TH-0001 (Thailand/TISI): "We disapprove the draft ISO/IEC 29500 for the reason that the time given by the fast-track processing is not enough for consideration of this important draft."
AU-0005 (Australia/SA): "Some reviewers found the size and organization of the draft difficult. It would be burdensome for maintenance for the current organization to continue...."
CN-0001 (China/SAC): "... We think the fast-track procedure is not suitable for this DIS. We requested an extension to the ballot period for the DIS29500 for another 6 months in the letter to ISO/IEC JTC1 secretariat as well as ITTF. We still keep to our position that more time is necessary and essential to conduct a credible and responsible evaluation."
FI-0002 (Finland/SFS) "...Finland is concerned about the general quality and immatureness of the present state of the proposed standard. There are several issues where further development would be appreciated for the proposed standard to meet the ISO standards document criteria defined in ISO/IEC Directives Part 2..."
ZA-0001 (South Africa/SABS): "... Notwithstanding this view, and noting the limited time available to adequately study a specification of this length, the South African committee has detailed a number of technical defects in DIS 29500 which has informed its decision to not support its continued progress through the fast-track process. ... Even for a highly technical document the proposed standard is extraordinarily convoluted, idiosyncratic and lengthy, making any attempt at compliance difficult. ..."
CA-0001 (Canada/SCC): "...Further, Canada makes the following recommendations: 1.Convert this standard to a multi part standard, which would mean the reversion of DIS 29500 to an acceptable level of review within the ISO/IEC JTC 1 development process..."
NZ-0002 (New Zealand/SNZ): "This DIS standard requires clarification – the lack of clarity may lead to ambiguity and inconsistent application."
[1] http://www.itn.liu.se/~stegu/OOXML/DIS29500-2008-002.pdf
Post a Comment