The MSA actually asked during the meeting for any other entities who might be interested. However note that it's not for individuals personally, but rather as representatives of entities. Maybe you can think of other entities such as CSM, MCAST and so on who should be included and who could be persuaded to let you be their nominee.
The commitee was apparently formed when MSA sent out an invitation to a group of individuals. I don't know how these were selected. Apart from the ones who attended, there was also GRTU, FOI and Consumers' association. MSA may not have been aware that this committee might be an ideological battleground. The lawyer seems to be a specialist in IP law. I have no idea whether any of the others were sort of proposed by Microsoft. On 09/08/07, Anton Xuereb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ye! let's kill them all!! > > err..i mean...nice points there... > > imhatra li with all those good points they still get their standard > approved >.< > > > > On 8/9/07, Philip Serracino Inglott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Thanks for that update! > > > > But I'm still unclear about how the committee is formed. Is it by > > invitation on behalf of MSA? > > How do Fenech & Fenech come into this? What about other NGOs that might > > be interested? > > Can others participate without a vote? > > > > Probably I should be asking MSA directly, but since Ramon is our contact > > point there, maybe you could ask them. > > > > Thanks > > > > Philip > > > > Ramon Casha wrote: > > > > Hello everyone. > > > > Yes, the meeting took place yesterday. Apparently FFII had their date wrong. > > > > I received an invitation from Michael Cassar of MSA, since I had already > > participated in a number of technical committees with MSA related to > > language and localization. I didn't realise others could attend. > > > > > > The meeting was the first one for the newly-being-set-up technical > > committee (TC) which will mirror the JTC1, an ISO committee for all things > > IT related. It was set up rather hurriedly, with some pressure from > > Microsoft, to vote on the OOXML standard however that will only be its > > first task - it's an ongoing committee which will have other meetings to > > decide on other matters. > > > > > > The meeting was attended by Michael Cassar, Frank Balzan and George Cutajar > > from MSA itself, Pierre Mallia (Microsoft Malta), Antonio Ghio (laywer, > > Fenech & Fenech), John Abela from University, Pierre Vella from MITTS, > > Sandro Grech from Exigy (a Microsoft Gold Partner), and yours truly. > > > > > > At the start of the meeting, Michael Cassar (MSA) explained something about > > the composition of such TCs - namely that companies are not represented on > > TCs, but only NGOs and other bodies, like the FOI and Chamber of Commerce. > > Each of these can send more than one representative but they will have one > > vote each. Thus, Microsoft Malta or Exigy cannot be represented as such, > > but the FOI can select an individual from Microsoft Malta as its nominee. > > The MLUG is an NGO. MITTS seems to be kinda "not exactly a company". For > > the rest, they will need to produce something - even an email - from the > > respective body such as FOI, confirming them as their nominee. Once on the > > TC however, all individuals are supposed to be working for the common good, > > not representing their own companies or groups. All this seems to have > > taken Pierre Mallia by surprise, and they have some reservations about > > whether they will manage to get the requisite approval from University, > > FOI, Chamber etc. > > > > > > Afterwards, Pierre Mallia introduced the only topic on the agenda - the > > OOXML proposed standard. After giving a brief introduction about the > > proposed standard, I moved a 3-point objection. The text of a document I > > distributed is found below: > > > > > > ----start > > Arguments about DIS 29500 (OOXML) > > > > One standard, one test, accepted everywhere? > > > > Item 2.2 in the "fast track procedure" is "to ascertain that there is no > > evident contradiction with other International Standards". ISO's own aim is > > for "one standard, one test, and one conformity assessment procedure > > accepted everywhere". However, ISO already has an existing standard for an > > XML office document format. ISO/IEC 26300 describes the document format > > commonly known as ODF (Open Document Format). This format is already used > > by a number of software packages, including > > OpenOffice.org, KOffice, Google Documents and others - a total of over 30 > > applications. > > > > Even Microsoft Office 2007 has the ability to store its documents in the > > ODF format, through a Microsoft-sponsored ODF converter. The site for this > > project states as its goal "to provide translators to allow for > > interoperability between applications based on ODF (OpenDocument) > > 1.0 standards and Microsoft OpenXML based Office applications." > > > > In addition to needlessly defining a new document standard, OOXML defines > > several new formats instead of using existing and established standards. > > For example: > > > > > > * SpreadsheetML uses decimal time instead of ISO8601. The decimal time > > format contains errors such as treating 1900 as a leap year. In fact the > > OOXML specification forbids applications from supporting dates before 1900. > > > > * DrawingML is used instead of SVG (W3C standard) or ISO/IEC 26300:2006. > > * a new mathematical format instead of MathML (W3C standard) > > * book 4 section 2.18.66 uses a new numbering format instead of ISO > > 10646. > > > > * OOXML uses its own list of language codes instead of ISO639. > > * OOXML defines its own hashing algorithms instead of ISO/IEC 10118-3 > > or W3C XML-ENC. > > > > In part due to its failure to use existing standards, the full OOXML > > standard is over 6,000 pages long (about 10 times the ODF standard). To > > fast-track this specification leaves insufficient time for proper > > evaluation - a mere 30 day evaluation period. In addition, the JTC > > directives state that "the specification shall have had sufficient review > > over an extended time period to characterise it as being stable." > > > > > > The new proposed format "was designed from the start to be capable of > > faithfully representing the pre-existing corpus of word-processing > > documents, presentations, and spreadsheets that are encoded in binary > > formats defined by Microsoft Corporation." However a standard must not be > > tied to any specific vendor or product. By comparison, the ODF was created > > by OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information > > Standards), a wide consortium which includes many representatives of the IT > > industry - including Microsoft - to be able to represent documents from any > > vendor or product. > > > > > > The document is full of proprietary elements and attributes like > > autoSpaceLikeWord95, useWord97LineBreakRules, useWord2002TableStyleRules. > > Some elements require implementers to implement certain proprietary binary > > formats, including Microsoft's own older document formats, which are not > > open standards, often undocumented and sold under licenses that > > specifically prohibit reverse-engineering or reimplementation. > > > > > > The OOXML standard leaves many elements undefined. For example in book 4 > > section 6.1.2.19, in the equationxml attribute of the shape element the > > "actual format of the contents of this attribute are application-defined". > > Similarly, it refers to styles like apples, scaredCat, heebieJeebies, which > > are incompletely defined ( > > e.g missing height, width, color-depth, orientation). Line styles > > babyRattle, balloonsHotair, etc provide no details on horizontal, vertical > > and corner scenarios. > > > > Resources and references > > > > Comprehensive list of objections to OOXML: > > http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections > > Microsoft's ODF plugin for Office: > > http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter > > Applications supporting ODF: > > http://www.opendocumentfellowship.org/applications > > > > ----end > > > > During this discussion, the first argument was pretty much discarded. > > However there was quite a bit of interest about the other points - namely > > that the specification is incomplete, and that it depends on proprietary > > products. In view of this, I am preparing a more comprehensive document > > concentrating on the flaws in the specification itself. I've found quite a > > few resources on the web. > > > > The next meeting is slated for Monday 20th August. > > > > > > > > > > Ramon Casha > > Software Services > > Megabyte Limited (www.megabyte.net) > > F4, The Technopark, Mosta MST3000, Malta > > tel (+356) 21421600 - fax (+356) 21421590 > > > > Megabyte > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Gregory Smirnov > > Sent: Il-Ħamis, 9 ta' Awissu 2007 09:23 > > To: Malta Linux User Group - general list > > Subject: Re: [ > > LINUX.ORG.MT] Fwd: URGENT: OOXML in Malta: meeting tomorrow > > > > Philip, > > > > Fist, my apologies for delayed post. But I was far from Internet and found > > it > > only today morning. I think more people in Malta received same post, but > > > > nobody forwarded it here. > > > > Huh! As I just learned now, meeting actually happend yesterday... > > I think we will hear from them today, and get some light on what has > > happened. > > > > Gregory. > > > > On Thursday 09 August 2007 08:53:26 Philip Serracino Inglott wrote: > > > > Why do we get to know about this now? Is there more info? Who will > > attend > > etc... Can I? Should I attend? > > > > Philip > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MLUG-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > Tel: (+356) 21421600 URL: www.megabyte.net > > Fax: (+356) 21421590 E-mail: [EMAIL > > PROTECTED] > > > > DISCLAIMER > > > > The information contained in this electronic mail may be confidential or > > legally privileged. It is for the intended recipient(s) only. Should you > > receive this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this > > mail. Unauthorised use of the contents is strictly prohibited. Whilst all > > care has been taken, the Megabyte Group is not responsible for the > > integrity of the contents of this electronic mail and any attachments > > included within. > > _______________________________________________ > > MLUG-list mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MLUG-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > MLUG-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list > > -- Ramon Casha
_______________________________________________ MLUG-list mailing list [email protected] http://mailserv.megabyte.net/mailman/listinfo/mlug-list
