<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Where&#8217;s OpenDocument 1.2? (ODF)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://holloway.co.nz/blog/2009/09/wheres-opendocument-1-2/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://holloway.co.nz/blog/2009/09/wheres-opendocument-1-2/</link>
	<description>Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 19:15:44 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rob Weir</title>
		<link>http://holloway.co.nz/blog/2009/09/wheres-opendocument-1-2/comment-page-1/#comment-886</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob Weir</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://holloway.co.nz/blog/?p=515#comment-886</guid>
		<description>Good post.  Fortunately we&#039;re a lot better at standards than we are with schedule estimation.  I think the important piece to watch is the OASIS process, since that has the more stringent requirements.  One of the requirements is that we have three successful implementations of the draft by OASIS members.  So implementations must exist before we&#039;re eligible to take the draft to an OASIS ballot.  This is similar to the practice of many W3C working groups, which will delay the issue of a Recommendation pending implementation experience.  But this is quite unlike Ecma, where OOXML was issued before there were any implementations and in fact we&#039;re still waiting for Microsoft to implement OOXML a couple years later.

In any case, we&#039;re not rushing ODF 1.2 to meet any artificially imposed deadline, nor are we neglecting to make progress with it.  ODF 1.2 will be ready when it is ready.  And until that day comes, I&#039;m quite pleased with ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 adoption.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post.  Fortunately we&#8217;re a lot better at standards than we are with schedule estimation.  I think the important piece to watch is the OASIS process, since that has the more stringent requirements.  One of the requirements is that we have three successful implementations of the draft by OASIS members.  So implementations must exist before we&#8217;re eligible to take the draft to an OASIS ballot.  This is similar to the practice of many W3C working groups, which will delay the issue of a Recommendation pending implementation experience.  But this is quite unlike Ecma, where OOXML was issued before there were any implementations and in fact we&#8217;re still waiting for Microsoft to implement OOXML a couple years later.</p>
<p>In any case, we&#8217;re not rushing ODF 1.2 to meet any artificially imposed deadline, nor are we neglecting to make progress with it.  ODF 1.2 will be ready when it is ready.  And until that day comes, I&#8217;m quite pleased with ODF 1.0 and ODF 1.1 adoption.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
