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.

Comments

Check the author

[ZPWeeks]

It may be Texas, but the bill was filed by Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat representative from the U.S. House. They'll shoot it down. (unless Cheney misses and hits MS OOXML by accident.)

Re:Check the author

[pallmall1]

They'll shoot it down.

You're probably right. A $500 Million Microsoft datacenter in San Antonio, Texas probably also means Microsoft's OOXML for Texas documents. Ballmer aims his furniture better than Chaney aims his shotgun. :)

Re:Check the author

[yo_tuco]

"Texas probably also means Microsoft's OOXML for Texas documents.

Some years ago Microsoft threated the city of Huston to sign up for a multiyear, $12 million software licensing plan or face an audit exposing the city's use of software it hadn't paid for.

But as it turned out, Huston had more than enough proof of purchase seals. And then they voted to dump Microsoft Office in favor of SimDesk because of Microsoft's gestapo tactics. I don't know if that's still true today and I doubt SimDesk supports OOXML. So not all parts of Texas are friends of Microsoft.

Let's get the ball rolling!

[mrchaotica]

With Massachusetts, bunches of foreign governments, and now Texas realizing the importance of document formats that are Free, future proof, and equally accessible to all citizens (including those who don't use Windows), I think it's about time the other forty-eight states introduced similar bills of their own. I just wrote an email suggesting such to my representative; now it's your turn!

"Red" and "blue" is irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

This just goes to show that Free Software is not a democrat or republicrat thing. (Remember, Microsoft itself is in one of the 'bluer' states.)

The real issue here is freedom, and the benefits that can be derived from it: Better security, lower upfront costs, less obsolescence, open formats, and the ability to choose between software packages and providers, rather than just taking whatever Microsoft shoves down your throat.

OOXML and ISO approval

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi folks,

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

Re:Why not OpenXML?

[mrchaotica]

The author is pretty dismissive about OpenXML, yet doesn't explain why OpenXML wouldn't meet the criteria.

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.

By then OpenXML will probably be an ISO standard...

If this post above yours is accurate, no it won't.

"published without restrictions or royalties": OpenXML already fulfills this today

No, you're wrong. Patents qualify as restrictions.