Template for comments and secretariat observations | Date: 2007-08-27 | Document: Draft International
Standard ISO/IEC 29500
Information Technology – Office Open XML file formats. Attributed to ISO/IEC JTC 1 |
1 | 2 | (3) | 4 | 5 | (6) | (7) |
MB1 |
Clause No./ Subclause No./ Annex (e.g. 3.1) |
Paragraph/ Figure/Table/Note (e.g. Table 1) |
Type of com-ment2 | Comment (justification for change) by the MB | Proposed change by the MB | Secretariat observations on each comment submitted |
MX | Part 2 | Packaging Conventions | ge | ZIP package format is not a unique compression system or even an ISO standard. Multiple ZIP implementations have different compression and tagging techniques. This will cause wrong operation of inverse algorithms for decompression and probable data loss. Moreover, not all ZIP compressors – decompressors are open or freely available for all computer platforms. Additionally, a password protected document implies the use of proprietary binary interpreters (such as OLE). Encrypted ZIP files are not well supported. | Declare more specific characteristics for ZIP methods and usages, including precise compression algorithms. | |
MX | Part 3 | Entire part | ge | There is no clear definition for locale settings, causing poor language and regional translations. The locale configuration will depend on application, document specifications and / or the operating system involved during the interpretation process. | Include ISO’s codification and international character representation, as well as ISO’s date and time notations. | |
MX | Part 3 | Clauses 5 and 7 | ge | DrawingML and SharedMLs have different text representations compared with word processing, spreadsheets and presentations definitions. This will cause wrong data formats and data loss if an application describes content based either first or second description. | Avoid the use of DrawingML and SharedMLs due they are not XML compliant specifications and have limited backward compatibility for text representations within proposed standard. | |
MX | Part 3 3.16.9.1 | Entire sub clause | ge | Proposed standard explicitly declares not to provide a coherent mechanism to determine date base system. This will originate wrong date translations along different computer systems. | Define an explicit mechanism to settle which date base system must be applied by the computer system to carry on the right and original date and time. | |
MX | Part 3
3.16.9.1 |
Paragraphs 3 and 4 | te | There is no definition for dates prior January 1st 1900 and after December 31st 9999. This provides insufficient date representations for values outside the specified range. | According with the date base system declared, the negative serial values usage is recommended for dates and times prior date base system’s initial value. Is also recommended the support for a larger serial number representation. | |
MX | Part 3.
Clause 6 |
Entire clause | ge | After several tests, VML representation demonstrates not to be operational within proposed standard’s compliant applications. Location, dimensions and general characteristics for VML objects are not well represented and interpreted. | Avoid VML implementation. It is not XML compliant. | |
MX | Part 3.
7.2 |
Entire sub clause | te | Metadata definitions are very limited to work in proprietary implementations. There is no clear definition for customized metadata needed in data search and recovery operations, such as search engines or multivendor DBMS serving over the Internet. | Include a more specific definition for metadata components. Also a procedure for customized metadata creation and retrieval. |
1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **)
2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial
NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory.
page of 2
ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version 2001-10
|
![]() |
|