|TITLE:||Summary of Voting - NP: Information technology - Document Description and Processing Languages - Minimum requirements for specifying document rendering systems|
|ACTION:||According to the JTC 1 Directives 184.108.40.206 this NP proposal passes; WG2 is directed to begin work while awaiting JTC 1 endorsement.|
|DISTRIBUTION:||SC34 and Liaisons|
|REFER TO:||N0578 - 2004-11-16 - Information technology - Document Description and Processing Languages - Minimum requirements for specifying document rendering systems|
Dr. James David Mason
(ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 34 Secretariat - Standards Council of Canada)
Crane Softwrights Ltd.
Kars, ON K0A-2E0 CANADA
Telephone: +1 613 489-0999
Facsimile: +1 613 489-0995
Q.1 Do you accept the proposal in document JTC 1/SC 34 N 0578 as a sufficient definition of the new work item? (If you have responded "NO" to the above question, you are required to comment.)
Q.2 Do you support the addition of the new work item to the programme of work of the joint technical committee?
Q.3 Do you commit yourself to participate in the development of this new work item?
Q.4 Are you able to offer a project editor who will dedicate his/her efforts to the advancement and maintenance of this project? (If "YES," please identify)
Q.5 Do you have a major contribution or a reference document ready for submittal?
Q.6 Will you have such a contribution in ninety days?
Q.7 Which standard development track is proposed?
Now Have Contribution
Will Have Contribution
|Korea, Republic of||YES||YES||YES||YES||NO||NO|
Q.7 Canada agrees with the "Default Timeframe" as recommended in the NWI Proposal
Q.4 Japan offers Mr. Keisuke Kamimura (GLOCOM) as a project editor.
Q.4 Dr. Soon-Bum Lim, SOOKMYUNG WOMEN'S UNIVERSITY
Q.1 It is not clear how this new work item will affect the status of ISO/IEC 10180 Standard Page Description Language (SPDL). The programme of work should include a review of the status of SPDL and recommendation of any action that may be necessary (e.g. withdrawal of SPDL).
Q.3 The UK does propose to participate in this new work item, however the UK hasn't been able yet to decide upon how to resource its participation.
Q.1 The US vote of NO is based upon the following ambiguity in the proposal:
1. Will the result of this standard be a means of specifying required 'functionality' for a document to be 'properly' rendered? or,
2. Will the result be used by printing systems to negotiate 'functionality' when passed a document with a statement as in #1?
If the answer is #1, then the proposed project would be in scope and supported by the US.
If the answer is #2, the the proposed project would not be in scope for SC34.
Since it was unable to determine which was the correct answer for this proposal, the US votes to disapprove this item.
Q.2 For the reasons stated in response to question 1.