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. Re:Minnesota also by bigtomrodney · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFS

    '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.' The one thing that stands out to me is specifying that it is XML-based. I have no problem with that, the two competing formats are indeed XML based but shouldn't the mandate of the state simply to specify the Open and Cross-Platform aspects?
    What happens for instance if tomorrow all of us wonderful Slashdot readers co-developed a magical format that not only was open and cross platform but inexplicably worked with all currently available office suites without modification... ...but it wasn't XML. Does that disqualify it? I would rather see the politics of this issue left with the politicians, the tech issues left with the techies. I've seen other combinations go horribly wrong DMCA
    --
    I never get used to these constant resurrections
  2. What does XML have to do with it? by beavis88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As long as the format meets criteria 1-4, I don't see why it's necessary to specify that it must be XML-based. Keep it simple, and all that...

    1. Re:What does XML have to do with it? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's only one reason, and that's because the higher-ups think that EVERYTHING should be XML based. Of course, they have no idea what this actually means. They just know that it needs to have XML in it, because that's what the other guys are doing.

      This reminds me of my boss, who keeps saying that we need to publish things in XML, but can't give me any reason why we should. Then again, two years ago I kept on hearing about how our company needed a blog, again with no justification as to how it would help us. Thankfully, that passed. Eventually, the XML thing will, too. Of course, this isn't meant to belittle the things out there that actually can benefit from utilizing an XML format.

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  3. Wtf? Why "XML-based", specifically? by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not just require the format to be in ANY published standard format? "XML" by itself is meaningless, "extensible" is a loaded term (and a very bad idea when trying to write a way to keep things compatible). Why do lawmakers always have to over-specify things until the purpose of the law is lost?

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:Wtf? Why "XML-based", specifically? by beavis88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do lawmakers always have to over-specify things until the purpose of the law is lost?

      Job security. If they wrote clear, concise, and sharply targeted bills, we wouldn't need to keep electing a fresh crop to fix the mess left by the last one.

  4. Microsoft's open XML format: by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just specifying XML doesn't mean much, really:

    <document>
    Description of MS Open Format
    <![CDATA[
    37642364 78346478 23465789 34657834 65783465 78934653 47895634 78563478 65347856
    56347825 63478256 34786578 34567893 45678934 65783456 78465783 46578346 57834567
    34895723 48957348 90578934 75890347 58934758 93475892 ... more binary crap...
    ]]>
    </document>

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  5. Here's my problem: by superbus1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There's one company missing from the Open Document party here, and without it playing along, I don't see this lasting long.

    I am, of course, talking about Microsoft. They refuse to accept the Open standard.

    Until that happens, there will be problems. Yes, you could have .odt documents sent internally, but what if someone has to send a document to someone outside the company? Microsoft Office does not recognize .odt, and if you think that you can train someone to remember to send .doc files to outside users, and keep internal documents to .odt, then I have a bridge to sell you.

    --
    Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
  6. For one thing... by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    XML means it is readable by humans. You don't even NEED any kind of a program to get the text.

  7. Re:Minnesota also by daeg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If, and when, such a format comes into play, and has a large enough subset of tools available for it, then the laws can be revised. With all documents already in XML, converting to the new format should be nearly painless, and more likely, both formats could be used.

    The tech needs to be spelled out clearly in the law, otherwise vendors like Microsoft will be able to say their format qualifies and lobby until enough tech-clueless legislators agree to it.