Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Joins Open Document Bandwagon

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the stretching-the-lobbiests-thin dept.

Andy Updegrove writes "A legislator in California has decided that it's time for California to get on the open formats bandwagon. If all of the bills filed in the last few weeks pass, California, Texas, and Minnesota will all require, in near-identical language, that 'all documents, including, but not limited to, text, spreadsheets, and presentations, produced by any state agency shall be created, exchanged, and preserved in an open extensible markup language-based, XML-based file format.' What type of formats will qualify? Again, the language is very uniform (the following is from the California statute): 'When deciding how to implement this section, the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features: (1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications; (2) Fully published and available royalty-free; (3) Implemented by multiple vendors; (4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.'"

9 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. Minnesota also by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Informative

    Minnesota also is considering open documents.

    1. Re:Minnesota also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's also worth noting that despite all the talk a couple of years ago, Massachusetts isn't.

      Take a peak at the upcoming Tax Fairness Bill - but only if you use Microsoft Word, as no other version is provided.

      Massachusetts was going to implement an ODF-only policy at the start of 2007. I guess not!

  2. Called my rep by inverselimit · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just called my CA Assembly rep to ask them to support the bill. Look yours up here.
    It may not be perfect, but is a move in the right direction.

    1. Re:Called my rep by inverselimit · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is also an online form for comment here.

  3. Texas House and Senate bills by ptbarnett · · Score: 2, Informative
    HB 1794
    SB 446

    So far, each bill has been filed and referred to the appropriate committee. However, the legislative session just started in January and things don't usually start happening until after the filing deadline on 2007-03-09.

  4. Re:More importantly, what *documents* qualify? by Eccles · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe the IFC (Industry Foundation Classes) format, intended for cross-app CAD communication, is XML-based, and major CAD developers are supporting or working on support for it.

    Death to DWG/DXF.

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  5. Re:Microsoft's open XML format: by skubeedooo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just specifying XML doesn't mean much, really

    Which is why the bill doesn't just specify XML. FTFA,

    ...the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features:
    1. Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications.
    2. Fully published and available royalty-free.
    3. Implemented by multiple vendors.
    4. Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.
  6. Re:XML panacea by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Informative

    From a greybeard

    XML Problem Checklist:

    - Ensure the library functions are flexible enough for the application, and do not consume too many resources. This can be an issue for smaller systems, and may be an issue for larger ones as well.

    - Ensure that the XML implementation is usable on a security basis. Should not have buffer overruns - parsing problems etc.

    - Ensure that the XML works with ANOTHER XML implementation. Adds testing (its not just "someone elses problem").

    - Application data structures are influenced by XML (eg. XML does not represent bitfields/bitsets directly). Mappings must be reasonable.

    - XML should be 'vetted so that the format doesn't look like it was laid out by 'noobs. Stuff like the Microsoft specification for XML WORD shouldn't be generated.

    - Because the only reason that XML formats are being used is for interoperability, a separate set of interoperability documents must be maintained. At some point, someone will ask the question "You use XML, I want to stick the data into ... That should be easy (because of XML). Help me."?

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  7. illegal now: PNG, JPEG, PDF, OGG... by r00t · · Score: 2, Informative

    All video formats are now illegal. (or is there now an XML video abomination?)
    All audio formats are now illegal.
    Probably all image formats are now illegal.

    Whee.... this'll be entertaining.