[LINK] re: Australian consultation on proposed OOXML standard

[Janet Hawtin]

On 8/7/07, Tom Worthington <Tom.Worthington at tomw.net.au> wrote: I
wrote Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:01:53 +1000:

> SA sent an agenda for the meeting. This was very
> useful in clarifying the process SA is using. I
> couldn't find these details on the SA web site so here are some excerpts:

Yes it is interesting stuff

> The JTC1 process has established that the
> ECMA-376 document is not contradictory to
> existing standards and ECMA has responded to a
> number of technical considerations raised in the
> initial consultation period. This forum is not to
> debate the merits of the JTC1 decision making
> process or the validity of the ECMA response.

Except that this is incorrect isn't it.
ooxml is known to conflict with the date and time standards.
people using ooxml would be required to function in a way which would break
existing time and date standards in order to comply with ooxml.
doesnt this undermine standards practice overall if the organisations
are not able to
be internally consistent? It feels like a choice between the proposal or
supporting standards as a process and internally consistent set of practices.

If the technical aspects of the proposal are known to be flawed, and
our standards process is aware of this and is still deeming the
technical aspects correct, what purpose does the current process
serve? What is the function of the standards process if not to ensure
that the standards are congruent and functional?

Janet