Slashdot Mirror
Texas Bill For Open Documents
Ditesh Kumar tips us to a blog entry by Sam Hiser noting a bill filed in Texas that would require state agencies to conduct their work in an open document format. After Microsoft's grueling battle against ODF in Massachusetts, bluest of blue states, it must be galling to face te same fight in the reddest of the red. Hiser notes that the bill includes a rigorous and sound definition of an open document format, which ODF would meet but Microsoft's current OOXML submission would not.
Microsoft went for ISO fast-track approval which allows only one month for dissenting countries to speak out (and with 6000 pages in the spec it's not enough time -- there hasn't been any public standardisation prior to this fast track as is normal with fast-tracked standards).
Anyway, as I understand it there only needs to be one single vote against in order to force a fast-tracked proposal down the long and arduous path of open evaluation, analysis, and justification. Canada and Britain have voted against Microsoft. Thanks Canada, thanks Britain!
OOXML is now considerably more shakey with governments around the world, and other countries, like Texas.
-- Matt Carter
Okay, then I will instead:
OpenXML doesn't meet the criteria because parts of it are patented. Besides, even if it weren't patented parts of the "standard" essentially say "re-implement the behavior of Word" which, for obvious reasons, is entirely unreasonable and should also disqualify it.
If this post above yours is accurate, no it won't.
No, you're wrong. Patents qualify as restrictions.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz