<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wikidot="http://www.wikidot.com/rss-namespace">

	<channel>
		<title>ISO withholds final text of standard</title>
		<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-66399/iso-withholds-final-text-of-standard</link>
		<description>Posts in the discussion thread &quot;ISO withholds final text of standard&quot; - Who is to be blamed for the OOXML delay?</description>
				<copyright></copyright>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:40:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		
					<item>
				<guid>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-66399#post-190284</guid>
				<title>ISO withholds final text of standard</title>
				<link>http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-66399/iso-withholds-final-text-of-standard#post-190284</link>
				<description></description>
				<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<wikidot:authorName>arebenti</wikidot:authorName>				<wikidot:authorUserId>36024</wikidot:authorUserId>				<content:encoded>
					<![CDATA[
						 <p>It is a brilliant excuse now to deny the publication of the edited text by the fact that four nations filed appeals. But this delay applies only to the formal publication that happens usually six month after adoption. What about the lack of an edited version of the Ballot Resolution Meeting agreed changes to the proposed standard? No consolidated version? It is mandated that these documents need to be provided to the ISO community. Where are they?</p> <p>A version dated April 30th was provided to the SC34 Secretariat, probably by the project editor and posted to the SC34 web site. However it was quickly pulled off the web site. Someone (ITTF?) seems to have told the Secretariat that the final DIS text should not be posted.</p> <p>However, the Directives provide that this final DIS text is to be granted access by all members of the ISO community.<sup class="footnoteref"><a id="footnoteref-142826-1" href="javascript:;" class="footnoteref" >1</a></sup></p> <p>Appeals against an action of SC or JTC1 must be made within 2 months of the receipt by National Bodies of the report of the relevant decision. So the <strong>appeals period for the BRM</strong> ended two months after the BRM ended. But since the final DIS text has not been released, the appeals period for the final DIS text has not been started.</p> <p>Which eventually enables other member states to file appeals against the text once it gets released or against other procedural irregularities. The standard as it stands is naked. It lacks a text. Where is it? The secret 30 April document is a phantom. We don't know yet if ISO can provide a consolidated version of the BRM results. We only know that member states adopted the non-existing text as a standard. Now the nations that filed complaints will be blamed for lack of delivery.</p> <h2><span>Media &amp; Blogs</span></h2> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/109328">Heise: ISO puts standard for Microsoft's OOXML document formats on hold</a></li> <li><a href="http://www.dailytech.com/Microsoft+Sees+OOXML+Stalled+Due+to+International+Appeals/article12044.htm">Dailytech/Jason Mick: Microsoft Sees OOXML Stalled Due to International Appeals</a></li> <li><a href="http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/06/still-no-specification-of-ooxml.html">Leif Jodahl's blog: Still no specification of OOXML</a></li> </ul> <div class="footnotes-footer"> <div class="title">Footnotes</div> <div class="footnote-footer" id="footnote-142826-1"><a href="javascript:;" >1</a>. Advocatus Diaboli Consulting (ADC) provides the model answer in section 1.2.67 of its Handbook of advanced excuse: "Yes, we made it available online for everyone to see. For ten minutes…"</div> </div> 
				 	]]>
				</content:encoded>							</item>
				</channel>
</rss>