Office Open XML   Technical Review (R2 to JTC 1 for ISO 29500 ( Waleed Oransa
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.   </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul...
What is standard? <ul><li>ISO </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body...
What is standard? <ul><li>The British Standards Institute (BSI) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ ...a standard is an agreed,  repea...
What is standard? <ul><li>ISO/IEC JTC1 Directives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A purpose of IT standardization is to ensure tha...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
OOXML Overview <ul><li>One piece of a Standard that describes a family of XML schemas </li></ul><ul><li>Define the XML voc...
OOXML Overview <ul><li>The goals of OOXML: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enable the implementation of the Office Open XML formats ...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.   </li></ul><ul...
Evaluation Criteria <ul><li>Evaluation should be based on the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Application independent. </...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
Important Questions <ul><li>1. Application independence? </li></ul><ul><li>No standard should ever depend on a certain ope...
Important Questions <ul><li>2. Supporting pre-existing Open Standards? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Whenever applicable and possi...
Important Questions <ul><li>3. Backward compatibility for all vendors? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One of the alleged main advan...
Important Questions <ul><li>4. Proprietary extensions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proprietary, application-specific extensions ...
Important Questions <ul><li>5. Dual standards? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The goal of all standardization is always to come to ...
Multiple standards? <ul><li>Aren't multiple document standards good? We have PDF and HTML, so why not ODF and OOXML? </li>...
Important Questions <ul><li>6. Legally safe? </li></ul><ul><li>Granting all competitors freedom from legal prosecution for...
No answer <ul><li>All these questions should have answers that should be provided by the national standardization bodies t...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
Overview of ISO national bodies comments <ul><li>Errors in the standard document. Example: </li></ul><ul><li>IP (Intellect...
Overview of ISO national bodies comments – Cont. <ul><li>OPC compliant: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applications to arbitrarily ...
Overview of ISO national bodies comments – Cont. <ul><li>Redundancy:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repetition of complex type dec...
Overview of ISO national bodies comments – Cont. <ul><li>Size Restriction: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arbitrarily restrict the ...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues summary <ul><li>General Formatting </li></ul><ul><li>Calendar </li></ul><ul><li>Text and parag...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Section 2.16.4.3 General formatting,  page 1503, line 0. </li></ul><ul><ul><l...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Part 4, 2.16.5.16, Page 1524 . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Various calendars (the S...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>General Comment - Hijri/Gregorian Calendars </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DIS 29500 m...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Section 2.16.4.3, Page 1501 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The use of different notati...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Part 4, 2.16.5.16, Page 1524 . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Various calendars (the S...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.18: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;mirrorIndents (Use Left/Right I...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed   – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.2.28  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;rtl (Right To Left Te...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed  – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.2.28  - Cont. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a) The example does ...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.2.29  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;shadow (Shadow)&quot; ,...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.4.24  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;left (Table Cell Left B...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.26  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;left (Table Cell Left Mar...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.27   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>left (Table Left Border) , pag...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.29 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;right (Table Cell Right Ma...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.30  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>right &quot;(Table Cell Right B...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.31   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>right (Table Cell Right Margin...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.32   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;right (Table Right Borde...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.46   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>tblHeader (Repeat Table Row on...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.51   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;tblLook (Table Style Con...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.18.5   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;ST_BrClear (Line Break T...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.18.5   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot; ST_BrClear (Line Break ...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.18.100   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;ST_TextDirection (Text...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 3.17.7.344   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The spreadsheet function N...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>The whole spec   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unicode directional formatting...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.6   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>bidi (Right to Left Paragraph...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.12   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ind (Paragraph Indentation),...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.18   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>mirrorIndents (Use Left/Righ...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.37  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>tab (Custom Tab Stop), page 1...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.22   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>jc (Table Row Alignment), on p...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 3.8.1, on page 2092   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alignment  </li><...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Page 4367, 4398, 4439, 4476, 4512, 4539, 4576, 4603, 4631, 4666, 4695...
Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Whole spec   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The description of a property may ...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
More serious concerns <ul><li>The limitations on the openness of OOXML format. </li></ul><ul><li>The lack of proper review...
Huge and using of existing ISO standards <ul><li>OOXML is a perfectly good ISO standard. Isn't this just complaining by ot...
Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview.  </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria.  </li></ul><ul>...
Existing Microsoft Office documents <ul><li>OOXML is a brand new format, different from the existing .DOC, .XLS and .PPT f...
Wide industry? <ul><li>Doesn't OOXML already have wide industry adoption? </li></ul><ul><li>Most of the OOXML implementati...
Why we should vote NO <ul><li>OOXML does not satisfy the criteria of being: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Precise. </li></ul></ul>...
ISO Sept results <ul><li>P-Members voting: 17 in favor out of 32 = 53.12% </li></ul><ul><li>Source: http://www.iso.org/iso...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Ooxml Arabic support Technical Review

3,446 views

Published on

Ooxml Arabic support Technical Review

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
2 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • ISO committees were staffed by MS and its partner - everyone know that - so it is approved, however the OOXML ISO standard is defective and only give advantage to MS over others who would like to implement it.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • These slides are outdated. Arabic support in OOXML is by far more superior than ODF. Questions in these slides were answered by Microsoft and OOXML has been approved by ISO.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,446
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,468
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
2
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Ooxml Arabic support Technical Review

    1. 1. Office Open XML Technical Review (R2 to JTC 1 for ISO 29500 ( Waleed Oransa
    2. 2. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO national bodies comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    3. 3. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO national bodies comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    4. 4. What is standard? <ul><li>ISO </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use , rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.”. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ref. ISO/IEC Guide 2:2004,definition 3.2 </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. What is standard? <ul><li>The British Standards Institute (BSI) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ ...a standard is an agreed, repeatable way of doing something... They are intended to be inspirational - a summary of good and best practice rather than general practice.” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ref. http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Standards-and-Publications/About-standards/What-is-a-standard/ </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. What is standard? <ul><li>ISO/IEC JTC1 Directives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ A purpose of IT standardization is to ensure that products available in the marketplace have characteristics of interoperability, portability and cultural and linguistic adaptability .” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ref. 3JTC1 Directives, 5thEdition, Version 3.0, Section 1.2 </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO national bodies comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    8. 8. OOXML Overview <ul><li>One piece of a Standard that describes a family of XML schemas </li></ul><ul><li>Define the XML vocabularies for word-processing, spreadsheet, and presentation documents, as well as the packaging of documents that conform to these schemas. </li></ul>
    9. 9. OOXML Overview <ul><li>The goals of OOXML: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enable the implementation of the Office Open XML formats by the widest set of tools and platforms . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fostering interoperability across office productivity applications and line-of-business systems. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>support and strengthen document archival and preservation . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All in a way that is fully compatible with the large existing investments in Microsoft Office documents </li></ul></ul>
    10. 10. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO national bodies comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    11. 11. Evaluation Criteria <ul><li>Evaluation should be based on the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Application independent. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting of the current ISO standards. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Backward compatibility for all vendors. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Number of comments from other NBs. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The number of defects in the standard documentation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The evaluation of the standard goals. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The wide implementation of the OOXML Document format. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Arabic Language support (Very important). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The clarity and simplicity of the standard. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The quality of the current ISO standard ODF (Open Document format) vs. the new OOXML. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dual standards. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any more? </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO national bodies comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    13. 13. Important Questions <ul><li>1. Application independence? </li></ul><ul><li>No standard should ever depend on a certain operating system, environment or application. Application and implementation independence is one of the most important properties of all standards. </li></ul><ul><li>Is the MS-OOXML specification free from any references to particular products of any vendor and their specific behavior? </li></ul>
    14. 14. Important Questions <ul><li>2. Supporting pre-existing Open Standards? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Whenever applicable and possible, standards should build upon previous standardization efforts and not depend on proprietary, vendor-specific technologies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>OOXML neglects various standards, such as MathML and SVG, which are recommendations by the W3C, and uses its own vendor-specific formats instead. This puts a substantial burden on all vendors to follow Microsoft in its proprietary infrastructure built over the past 20 years in order to fully implement OOXML. It seems questionable how any third party could ever implement them equally well. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What is the benefit of accepting usage of such vendor-specific formats at the expense of standardization in these areas? Where will other vendors get competitive, compatible and complete implementations for all platforms to avoid prohibitively large investments? </li></ul></ul>
    15. 15. Important Questions <ul><li>3. Backward compatibility for all vendors? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>One of the alleged main advantages of OOXML is its ability to allow for backward compatibility, as also referenced in the ECMA International press release . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For any standard it is essential that it can be implemented by any third party without necessity of cooperation by another company, additional restricted information or legal agreements or indemnifications. It is also essential to not require the cooperation of any competitor to achieve full and comparable interoperability. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On the grounds of the existing OOXML specification, can any third party regardless of business model, without access to additional information and without the cooperation of Microsoft implement full backward compatibility and conversion of such legacy documents into OOXML comparable to what Microsoft can offer? </li></ul></ul>
    16. 16. Important Questions <ul><li>4. Proprietary extensions? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Proprietary, application-specific extensions are a known technique employed in particular by Microsoft to abuse and leverage its desktop monopoly into neighboring markets. It is a technique at the heart of the abusive behavior that was at the core of the decision against Microsoft by the European Commission in 2004 and Microsoft is until today continuing its refusal to release the necessary interoperability information. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>For this reason, it is common understanding that Open Standards should not allow such proprietary extensions, and that such market-distorting techniques should not be possible on the grounds of an Open Standard. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does OOXML allow proprietary extensions? Is Microsoft's implementation of MS-OOXML faithful, i.e. without undocumented extensions? Are there safeguards against such abusive behavior? </li></ul>
    17. 17. Important Questions <ul><li>5. Dual standards? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The goal of all standardization is always to come to one single standard, as multiple standards always provide an impediment to competition. Seeming competition on the standard is truly a strategic measure to gain control over certain segments of a market, as various examples in the past have demonstrated. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There is an existing Open Standard for office documents, namely the Open Document Format (ODF) (ISO/IEC 26300:2006). Both MS-OOXML and ODF are built upon XML technology, so employ the same base technology and thus ultimately have the same theoretical capabilities. Microsoft itself is a member of OASIS, the organization in which the ODF standard was developed and is being maintained. It was aware of the process and invited to participate. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Why did and does Microsoft refuse to participate in the existing standardization effort? Why does it not submit its technological proposals to OASIS for inclusion into ODF? </li></ul></ul>
    18. 18. Multiple standards? <ul><li>Aren't multiple document standards good? We have PDF and HTML, so why not ODF and OOXML? </li></ul><ul><li>Good, but only if they are designed to address different problems </li></ul><ul><li>ODF and OOXML are both designed as a format for editable documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Having two mutually incompatible formats for editable documents will allow the current non-interoperable state of affairs to continue. </li></ul><ul><li>Instead, extend the existing ODF ISO standard, in order to address the problems of the many editable legacy documents of the legacy MS-document required. </li></ul>
    19. 19. Important Questions <ul><li>6. Legally safe? </li></ul><ul><li>Granting all competitors freedom from legal prosecution for implementation of a standard is essential. Such a grant needs to be clear, reliable and wide enough to cover all activities necessary to achieve full interoperability and allow a level playing field for true competition on the merits. </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML is accompanied by an unusually complex and narrow &quot;covenant not to sue&quot; instead of the typical patent grant. Because of its complexity, it does not seem clear how much protection from prosecution for compatibility it will truly provide. </li></ul><ul><li>Cursory legal study implies that the covenant does not cover all optional features and proprietary formats mandatory for complete implementation of OOXML. So freedom of implementation by all competitors is not guaranteed for the entire width of the proposed OOXML format, and questionable even for the core components. </li></ul><ul><li>Does our national standardization body have its own, independent legal analysis about the exact nature of the grant to certify whether it truly covers the full spectrum of all possible OOXML implementations? </li></ul>
    20. 20. No answer <ul><li>All these questions should have answers that should be provided by the national standardization bodies through independent counsel and experts, and in particular not by Microsoft or its business partners , which have a direct conflict of interest on this issue. </li></ul><ul><li>If there is no good answer to any one of them, a national body should vote NO in ISO/IEC. </li></ul>
    21. 21. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO National Bodies Comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    22. 22. Overview of ISO national bodies comments <ul><li>Errors in the standard document. Example: </li></ul><ul><li>IP (Intellectual Property) issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure all appropriate intellectual property declarations are followed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any material referenced in the document is appropriately available to users of the document. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IP licensing arrangements that are not standard and that apparently impose significant constraints on use. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Complexity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It poses a considerable degree of implementation complexity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Size and Organization (The standard should be split). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contains a lot of tutorials materials (especially in part 4). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completeness of reference is unacceptable. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Conformance: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The word “Shall” </li></ul></ul>
    23. 23. Overview of ISO national bodies comments – Cont. <ul><li>OPC compliant: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Applications to arbitrarily move and rename parts, providing the correct relationships are kept. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data formats that do not use the OPC relationships system but hardcode locations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Example : an OPC file that contains various JPEG images together with an HTML file that uses those images and the equivalent Open XML file. If the Open XML application renames the images, the HTML file will be out-of-date. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Security issues: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The OPC relationships mechanism allows a kind of obfuscation that can hide virus or malware. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DIS29600 does not specify a macro mechanism or Active X controls. Consequently it is difficult to add extra protection. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Clarity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The meaning of para 2 is unclear. What is “ignored content” in this context. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The syntax of formulas is inadequately described. It should use ISO BNF or similar notation. </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. Overview of ISO national bodies comments – Cont. <ul><li>Redundancy: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Repetition of complex type declarations in Part 4 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Other standards: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DIS Part 4 S2.8 Fonts should contain a normative reference to IS 9541-4: or 14496-22 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>S2.8.2.14 should clarify that Panose is used to conform with IS 9541-4: or 14496-22. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>S2.8.2.16 should clarify that the values for the attributes of the <sig> element are standard values from IS 9541-4: or 14496-22Stochastic approach to capturing regularities in language expression. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The mapping between the codes and the ISO language and country codes should be specified. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The definition of s2.18.52 should be broadened to also allow standard country/locale pairs as well as the digits. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The definition of s3.17.6.7 should be broadened to also allow standard ISO 8601 dates. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Platform dependency: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Removing any platform dependencies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IS 29300 matches fonts based on their IANA name, as may be more suited for non-Open Font fonts, such as fonts on Linux. This should be considered in this standards as well not only Open Type Font. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data Types: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The data types are not accord to the ISO standard for languages. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dates before 1904 are not reliably interchangeable. !! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allows characters that are not allowed in XML markup to be represented. These primarily include control characters. </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. Overview of ISO national bodies comments – Cont. <ul><li>Size Restriction: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Arbitrarily restrict the sizes of bibliographic. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ST_String255 datatype should be removed. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Inappropriate to have a fixed list of values </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Measurements Units: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Convert function assumes particular measurements (eg, cup = 8oz/240ml); whereas other countries have alternative measurement (Aust cup = 250ml, UK = 285ml). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>More to add ..later. </li></ul>
    26. 26. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO National Bodies Comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    27. 27. Arabic/Bidi specific issues summary <ul><li>General Formatting </li></ul><ul><li>Calendar </li></ul><ul><li>Text and paragraph orientation </li></ul><ul><li>Clarity </li></ul>
    28. 28. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Section 2.16.4.3 General formatting, page 1503, line 0. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The use of different notations for the HINDIARABIC switch argument and the hindiNumbers ST_NumberFormat enumeration value is not clear. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The example is wrong and does not show Arabic-Indic nor Farsi digits. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It seems it is a switch for another type of digits not Arabic-Indic digits. </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Part 4, 2.16.5.16, Page 1524 . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Various calendars (the Saka Era, the Gregorian calendar, and the Lunar/Hijri calendar) are mentioned in the specification without a reference to a definition of those calendars. This is particularly serious for the Islamic/Hijri calendar here, because the specification doesn't make clear what sort of Hijri calendar and calculation method. </li></ul></ul>
    30. 30. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>General Comment - Hijri/Gregorian Calendars </li></ul><ul><ul><li>DIS 29500 makes reference to a number of calendars that are not further defined by reference to standards or defined by DIS 29500. In order to insure interoperability between applications, all calendars should be defined by references to standards for those calendars or defined within DIS 29500. The calendars in question are: Gregorian (localized) calendar, Gregorian Arabic Calendar, Gregorian Middle East French Calendar, Gregorian (U.S.) calendar, Gregorian Transliterated English calendar, Gregorian Transliterated French Calendar, Hebrew (Lunar) calendar, Hijri (Arabic Lunar Calendar), Japanese Emperor Era Calendar, Korean Tangun Era Calendar, Taiwan Era calendar, and Thai calendar. </li></ul></ul>
    31. 31. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Section 2.16.4.3, Page 1501 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The use of different notations for the ‘ARABICABJAD’, ‘ARABICALPHA” is not clear. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The provided examples are not clear nor sufficient. </li></ul></ul>
    32. 32. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Part 4, 2.16.5.16, Page 1524 . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Various calendars (the Saka Era, the Gregorian calendar, and the Lunar/Hijri calendar) are mentioned in the specification without a reference to a definition of those calendars. This is particularly serious for the Islamic/Hijri calendar here, because the specification doesn't make clear what sort of Hijri calendar and calculation method. </li></ul></ul>
    33. 33. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.18: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;mirrorIndents (Use Left/Right Indents as Inside/Outside Indents)&quot;, page 94 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It is not clear how this interacts with the bidi paragraph property and its effect on the ind property (see 2.3.1.12). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Section 2.3.1.45 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot; wordWrap (Allow Line Breaking At Character Level)&quot;, page 158. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Text in this section says in its first sentence that this element applies only to Latin text !! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This element should also apply to RTL scripts (Arabic, Farsi or Urdu). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Section 2.3.2.28 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The first sentence says: &quot;This element specifies that the alignment and reading order for this run shall be right to left.“. It is not clear how alignment can apply to a run, which may be just a part of a line. </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.2.28 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;rtl (Right To Left Text)&quot;, page 213 example </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The following text says: &quot;This setting determines the way in which the run contents are presented in the document when punctuation characters are part of the run's contents. When this property is specified, each part of the run between a punctuation mark shall be laid out right to left on the line.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then appears an example of English text &quot;This is a list: one, two, three.&quot; which will be presented as follows when &quot;rtl&quot; is specified: &quot;.three ,two ,one :This is a list&quot; </li></ul></ul>
    35. 35. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.2.28 - Cont. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a) The example does not implement the description: it shows how the parts are ordered relative to one another, and not that &quot;each part is laid out right to left&quot;. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b) It is not clear what is considered punctuation.  In particular, are signs like full stop, comma, hyphen-minus, solidus considered as punctuation when appearing within numbers? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c) If to judge by the example, this definition of run direction has no practical value.  It is hard to find a real-life use case where such an implementation of &quot;rtl&quot; would be useful. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>d) The run is not well defined as relative to direction: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- can a run contain both LTR and RTL text? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>- can a run contain RTL text together with numbers? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>e) What specifies the base direction of the run if it contains both LTR and RTL text? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>f) What specifies how successive runs with different directions are laid out relative to one another? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>g) The specification does not seem to support directionality at more than 2 levels. How can it handle a Hebrew sentence containing some Latin words quoted inside a LTR paragraph? </li></ul></ul>
    36. 36. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.2.29 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;shadow (Shadow)&quot; , page 214 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It say : &quot;This element specifies that the contents of this run shall be displayed as if each character has a shadow, displayed beneath the text and to its right.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Section 2.3.2.33 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>spacing (Character Spacing Adjustment), page 226 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The description for the val attribute says: &quot;Specifies a value whose contents shall contain a positive whole number, whose contents consist of a positive or negative measurement in twentieths of a point...&quot; </li></ul></ul>
    37. 37. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.4.24 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;left (Table Cell Left Border)&quot;, page 347 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;left&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281, in particular of the example appearing there. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;lead&quot;. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Section 2.3.4.25 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;left (Table Cell Left Margin Exception)&quot; , page 353 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The explanatory text mixes mentions of left margins and bottom margin. We believe that this is an error and all referred margins should be left margins. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;left&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;lead&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    38. 38. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.26 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;left (Table Cell Left Margin Default)“, page 355 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The explanatory text mixes mentions of left margins and bottom margin.  This not understood and might be an error, so that all referred margins should be left margins. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;left&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;lead&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    39. 39. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.27 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>left (Table Left Border) , page 357 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;left&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281, in particular of the example appearing there. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;lead&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    40. 40. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.29 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;right (Table Cell Right Margin Default)&quot;, page 365 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The explanatory text mixes mentions of right margins and bottom margin.  This not understood and might be an error, so that all referred margins should be right margins. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;right&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;trail&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    41. 41. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.30 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>right &quot;(Table Cell Right Border)&quot;, page 366 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;right&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281, in particular of the example appearing there. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;trail&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    42. 42. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.31 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>right (Table Cell Right Margin Exception)&quot;, page 373 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The explanatory text mixes mentions of left margins and bottom margin.  I believe that this is an error and all referred margins should be right margins. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;right&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;trail&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    43. 43. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.32 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;right (Table Right Border)&quot;, page 375 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>  the text should clarify if the meaning of &quot;right&quot; is affected by possible specification of the bidiVisual element. If not, this is a contradiction to the second paragraph of section 2.4.1 &quot;bidiVisual (Visually Right to Left Table)&quot; on page 281, in particular of the example appearing there. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>If yes, the name of this element should be changed to &quot;trail&quot;. </li></ul></ul>
    44. 44. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.46 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>tblHeader (Repeat Table Row on Every New Page)&quot; , page 421 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It is not understood why the explanatory text (second paragraph) mentions inheriting the &quot;table cell spacing&quot;.  This element is neither about cells nor about spacing. </li></ul></ul>
    45. 45. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.51 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;tblLook (Table Style Conditional Formatting Settings)&quot;, page 428 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>the &quot;val&quot; attribute is described as &quot;Two Digit Hexadecimal Value&quot;, but the example is '<w:tblLook w:val=&quot;0010&quot; />'. It seems to us that &quot;0010&quot; equals 2 only in binary notation, not as hexadecimal value.  In other words, 2 is not equal to 4 in most counting systems. </li></ul></ul>
    46. 46. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.18.5 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;ST_BrClear (Line Break Text Wrapping Restart Location)&quot;, page 1686 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The description for value &quot;left&quot; says:  &quot;If this is the leftmost region of text flow on this line, advance the text to the next position on the line.  Otherwise, treat this as a text wrapping break of type all...  If the parent paragraph is right to left, then these behaviours are reversed.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We don't think this is correct for leftmost region of the line in RTL paragraphs. </li></ul></ul>
    47. 47. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.18.5 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot; ST_BrClear (Line Break Text Wrapping Restart Location )&quot; , page 1688 . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The description for value &quot;right&quot; says:  &quot;If this is the rightmost region of text flow on this line, advance the text to the next position on the next line.  Otherwise, treat this as a text wrapping break of type all...  If the parent paragraph is right to left, then these behaviours are reversed.&quot; We don't think this is correct for rightmost region of the line in RTL paragraphs . </li></ul></ul>
    48. 48. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.18.100 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;ST_TextDirection (Text Flow Direction)&quot; , page 1829. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It seems that the description of value &quot;tbRl&quot; is wrong </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Suggestion: Correct description to be:  &quot;Specifies that text in the parent object shall flow from top to bottom vertically, then right to left horizontally on the page.“ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>There is no value for text flowing Right to Left, Top to Bottom, which leaves scripts like Arabic and Hebrew without proper description. </li></ul></ul>
    49. 49. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 3.17.7.344 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The spreadsheet function NETWORKDAYS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This function is defined to return the number of days between two dates, skipping over weekends in its calculations.  However, the definition of &quot;weekend&quot; is not defined. Is it Saturday/Sunday?  Friday/Saturday?  Thursday/Friday.  Different definitions are used in different parts of the world, including Israel.  But the OOXML definition misses this fact. </li></ul></ul>
    50. 50. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>The whole spec </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unicode directional formatting codes (e.g. RLM and LRM) and other invisible or ambiguous characters should be converted to character entities and those entities should be defined by the OOXML standard. Currently, XML 1.1 doesn't specify character entities for directional formatting code, but it does allow custom entities to be defined by the author/vendor. As a side note, the current OOXML implementation by Microsoft Office 2007 doesn't convert directional formatting codes to entities; they remain invisible in the text. </li></ul></ul>
    51. 51. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.6 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>bidi (Right to Left Paragraph Layout), page 51 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text of the section says: &quot; his property only affects the set of paragraph-level properties, and shall not affect the layout of text within the contents of this paragraph. &quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This leaves room to interpretation. </li></ul></ul>
    52. 52. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.12 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ind (Paragraph Indentation), page 78-80 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Since properties &quot;left&quot;, &quot;leftChars&quot;, &quot;right&quot;, &quot;rightChars&quot; are affected by paragraph direction, their names are misleading. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The whole spec </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Similar to the previous comment on section 2.3.1.12, wherever the meaning of &quot;left&quot; and &quot;right&quot; their derivatives may be inversed due to right-to-left direction of the concerned element, the names should be changed. </li></ul></ul>
    53. 53. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.18 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>mirrorIndents (Use Left/Right Indents as Inside/Outside Indents), page 94 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>It seems that the example is wrong. It says that the inside border is on the right on an odd numbered page. It should be the contrary. </li></ul></ul>
    54. 54. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.3.1.37 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>tab (Custom Tab Stop), page 141 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text says: &quot;This element specifies a single custom tab stop within a set of custom tab stops applied as part of a set of customized paragraph properties in a document.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This seems to imply that those tabs apply at paragraph level. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However, on page 142, we find in the description of the &quot;pos&quot; attribute: &quot;Specifies the position of the current custom tab stop with respect to the current page margins.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In the case of a RTL paragraph within a LTR page, it is not clear if the pos (tab stop position) value is measured starting from the left (page margins) or from the right (paragraph properties). </li></ul></ul>
    55. 55. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 2.4.22 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>jc (Table Row Alignment), on page 344 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The text says: &quot;The interpretation of property is reversed if the parent table is right to left using the bidiVisual element.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Then in the formal description of the &quot;val&quot; attribute on page 345, we find: &quot;The possible values for this attribute are always specified relative to the page, and do not change semantic from right-to-left and left-to-right documents.&quot; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This looks as a contradiction, or at least mightily confusing. </li></ul></ul>
    56. 56. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Section 3.8.1, on page 2092 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alignment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The description of attribute &quot;readingOrder&quot; list 3 possible values but does not specify what is the effect of each value. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>It is allowed to use the &quot;rtl&quot; attribute for text strings in a presentation. There is no specification of what should be the effect of this attribute. </li></ul></ul>
    57. 57. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Page 4367, 4398, 4439, 4476, 4512, 4539, 4576, 4603, 4631, 4666, 4695, 4722, 4734, 4860 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>direction </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;test&quot; is written instead of &quot;text&quot; (twice for each location) </li></ul></ul>
    58. 58. Arabic/Bidi specific issues detailed – Cont. <ul><li>Whole spec </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The description of a property may occurs tens of times in the document with identical text. For instance, the description of color, themeColor, themeShade, themeTint appears 37 times identically in the document. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This inflates the document and makes everybody's work 37 times harder than necessary. </li></ul></ul>
    59. 59. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO National Bodies Comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    60. 60. More serious concerns <ul><li>The limitations on the openness of OOXML format. </li></ul><ul><li>The lack of proper review as compared to other ISO standards. </li></ul><ul><li>The continued use of binary code tied to platform-specific features. </li></ul><ul><li>Unclear licensing terms for third-party implementers </li></ul>
    61. 61. Huge and using of existing ISO standards <ul><li>OOXML is a perfectly good ISO standard. Isn't this just complaining by other vendors? </li></ul><ul><li>Any ISO standard should references other existing ISO standards for such things as date specifications, math formula markup and many other needs of an office document format standard. </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML invents its own versions of these existing standards, which is unnecessary and complicates the final standard. </li></ul>
    62. 62. Agenda <ul><li>What is standard? </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML Overview. </li></ul><ul><li>Evaluation Criteria. </li></ul><ul><li>Important Questions. </li></ul><ul><li>ISO National Bodies Comments. </li></ul><ul><li>Arabic specific issues. </li></ul><ul><li>More Serious Concerns. </li></ul><ul><li>Existing MS Office documents. </li></ul><ul><li>Why Yes and why No. </li></ul>
    63. 63. Existing Microsoft Office documents <ul><li>OOXML is a brand new format, different from the existing .DOC, .XLS and .PPT formats. </li></ul><ul><li>These documents will have to be translated anyway. </li></ul><ul><li>Does OOXML contain the complete specification of MS legacy older document formats?? NO, so it has no advantage regarding existing MS office formats. </li></ul><ul><li>OOXML is needed for their accurate translation is false . </li></ul>
    64. 64. Wide industry? <ul><li>Doesn't OOXML already have wide industry adoption? </li></ul><ul><li>Most of the OOXML implementations are from partners of Microsoft who have contractual agreements to implement OOXML software. </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple independent implementations help a standard mature quicker and become more useful to its users. </li></ul>
    65. 65. Why we should vote NO <ul><li>OOXML does not satisfy the criteria of being: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Precise. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repeatable. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Common. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Aspirational. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best practice. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Culturally and linguistically adaptable </li></ul></ul>
    66. 66. ISO Sept results <ul><li>P-Members voting: 17 in favor out of 32 = 53.12% </li></ul><ul><li>Source: http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1070  </li></ul>

    ×