Massachusetts Likely To Approve OOXML

Ian Lamont writes "The IT department of the state government of Massachusetts has designated Microsoft's Office Open XML as an open document format, along with ODF, plain text, and HTML. It's only a draft policy, but it sets the stage for the format being given an official stamp of approval by state authorities — and weakens earlier Massachusetts support for the Open Document Format. Microsoft got a big boost at the end of 2006 when Ecma approved OOXML, and again this spring when pro-ODF legislation was being defeated or watered down in six states."

Comments

ob

[edittard]

Coming up later, Massachusets negotiates big discount from Microsoft. film at 11.

Re:ob

[smilindog2000]

It's not all about money. A lot of this is about trust. How far do you trust Microsoft with your data? OOXML's biggest drawback is that it's not truely open. I'm glad Microsoft is moving towards openness, but as is often the case in the corporate world, this isn't just some company being nice and giving users what they want. It's a direct attack against the ODF threat. It will likely be very effective, resulting in your having to continue to Trust in Microsoft (TM). Trust the big corporation. Good doggie.

Re:ob

[Rik Sweeney]

It's a direct attack against the ODF threat

Agreed, the name in itself has been chosen just to confuse Open Office and Office Open XML being the same thing. I can imagine the standards body meeting now:

"OK great, we'll pick the Open Document Format over Office Open XML"

(Some poor sod writing up the meeting notes)

Right, they've chosen the standard by the guys who do Open Office... aha! Here it is, Office Open XML...

Re:ob

[Narcissus]

When parts of a spec say 'and implement this how Word 95 did it', then it's not really open as it doesn't actually tell you how to implement it...

That's one reason, at least.

Re:ob

[cduffy]

So, there are two arguments I see people use to say OOXML is not open:

Neither of those things concerns me much; I'm a lot more concerned about failure to reuse preexisting standards. Forcing anyone who wants to build a full implementation of OOXML to implement Microsoft's own vector graphics language rather than using one of the many available SVG libraries is unnecessary and excessive. Same thing goes for MathML, XLink, etc. OOXML reinvents the wheel frequently, down to having their own date formatting quirks and names for colors (for which there are also ISO-standardized versions). To be sure, OOXML may still technically be "open" -- but if it's unnecessarily complex for anyone to implement without access to Microsoft's legacy codebase (from which the funky restrictions were cribbed), what's the difference?

Any "standard" which is so clearly developed with ease of implementation by a single vendor in mind has a rather obvious scent of unilaterality to it.

Second, some people are concerned that OOXML allows documents that use proprietary image formats or other elements? I ask you, what moron (l)user in this day and age is going to use a WMF file instead of jpg, bmp, gif, or png when creating a word document?

Is Microsoft's clipart library no longer largely WMF? Even if that's the case, modern OOXML implementations will need to implement these ancient, antiquated formats to be able to read documents which were imported into OOXML from Word 95 (or other versions which *did* use WMF as the primary format for imported documents) -- meaning that backwards compatibility will remain much of the headache it was even before documents were converted into a "standardized format". The right way to convert things is normalization, damnit -- if, rather than simply forcing all implementors of the new format to support all the quirks of the old, the conversion process always normalized out the old quirks (ideally into modern, standards-centric formats for which preexisting implementations are available under a variety of licenses), the standard would be much smaller, more manageable and simpler to implement. As an additional benefit, we wouldn't see things like buffer overflows in the parser code for Microsoft's more obscure, obsolete formats causing security holes (as has happened in recent memory).

Part of the point of having a standard is that anyone should be able to implement it. If the standard incorporates by reference other specifications which are not open standards, then the standard can only be implemented in full by those who have licensed said specifications. Is this not an obvious problem on its face? You say that those creating such documents are "(l)users" -- but most office workers just want to Get The Job Done, and don't care (and shouldn't need to care) what format their clip art library is in.

Re:ob

[TheRaven64]

So building legacy compatibility into a new system is a bad thing? Yes, if you do it like OOXML. The correct way of doing it is to make your format expressive enough to store all of the information that legacy documents contain, and then have a converter which translates the old markup into the new format. Consider the following made-up example:

Word processors generally have default style for headings. Which of these would make more sense in a standard:

• Have an element indicating the outline level, and one indicating the display style to use.
• Have an element saying 'use Word 95 format headings,' one saying 'use WordPerfect 3 format headings' etc.

Implementing a spec using the first is non-trivial. Implementing a spec using the second is almost impossible, unless you happen to already have code for importing documents in those formats. OOXML doesn't do this for heading styles (I don't think it does, anyway), but it does do this in a number of other elements.

In summary, the correct place for legacy support is in the importer, not the format. If you're doing things the OOXML way, you may as well have a couple of bytes reserved at the start of the file with one value reserved for 'this document is in Word 95 format' etc.

Re:ob

[jZnat]

Microsoft could just fully document their old formats, and those documents could remain in those formats with full compatibility in other applications (other than the original program used to write the document). Hell, they could fully document the new format, but instead they say, "refer to Word version x", where x is an undocumented, proprietary format.

Also, Microsoft could provide conversion programs that convert your old documents into the current standard (whether it be ODF or a version of OOXML without all the cruft).

Another thing they could have done is make OOXML a bit more of a modular standard (especially since they're using XML) and allow full standards compliance with applications that don't implement the backwards-compatibility cruft.

And regarding patents, instead of some unenforceable "covenant not to sue", they could explicitly give up all related patents or even license the OOXML specs under some sort of GPL3-like license where they are giving away their related patents to all uses of said standard.

Instead of all the logical approaches, they've decided it would be better to just pipe their old OLE format to an XML format with little to no changes and document it. Problem is, they left the cruft intact and didn't fully document the format. Hell, there's also the issue with patents, but if all they wanted to do was crush the ODF standard, they didn't really need to release their patents for it.

Re:ob

[Macthorpe]

I'd have some sympathy if the name of OpenOffice wasn't specifically chosen to make people think of Microsoft Office.

Re:ob

[Pentavirate]

Some standards are developed before the implementation like the 802.11n standard. That makes sure everyone can interopperate. You can also open a previously closed format which is what Microsoft is doing. This will allow other companies to implement Microsoft's format in their own products without having to reverse engineer it or pay for it.

I believe ODF worked the same way. They defined the format and then allowed it to be open so others can implement it. It's not exactly the same because ODF is Open Source but it's similar. I could be wrong about this one. I can't remember how it was developed very well.

Re:ob

[Just Some Guy]

I'd have some sympathy if the name of OpenOffice wasn't specifically chosen to make people think of Microsoft Office.

StarOffice started in 1986. Microsoft Office debuted in 1989.

So, now it has your sympathy?

Re:ob

[Fred_A]

I'd have some sympathy if the name of OpenOffice wasn't specifically chosen to make people think of Microsoft Office.

I think they did consider calling it "Open Fantasy Strip Poker" to try and make it more popular but that they thought that it wouldn't correctly reflect what the software was about, i.e. office software... So there you are. And it's OpenOffice.org btw.

Re:ob

[cduffy]

I don't really object to WMF so much in particular, and was using it as an example strictly at the parent's suggestion; consider it a placeholder for any nonstandardized format included by reference, in the context of the refutation of an argument that only "(l)users" will make use of functionality that embeds such content (and thus, by extension, that having a standard which includes nonstandardized specifications by reference is somehow acceptable).

What concerns me much more significantly is Microsoft's internally-developed XML-based vector graphics standard, which ISO refused to accept when it was submitted individually. Slipping a format which ISO refused when it was submitted standalone in through the back door by making it a subset of a much larger (and more politically charged) standard strikes me as exceedingly bad behavior for any vendor to get away with.

Microsoft lobbying

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC for obvious reasons...

What many people probably don't know is that Microsoft have been lobbying companies, especially technology partners, to lobby their local standards body to get them to lobby ISO. You receive an email talking about "choice" and why that is important and what OOXML is all about, you also get a handy word document (not in OOXML ironically) which you can fill in, sign and post, or an email template that you can send off to the organisation in question. MS also would like a "quote" from the companies to say that they support "choice" and hence OOXML.

And of course good partners of Microsoft often get cash investment in sales campaigns and go to markets.

Re:Microsoft lobbying

[visualight]

The pertinent question is this: is OOXML an open format?

No. I think openxml is a scam. My unverified assumption is that at present there is no translater that is 100% compatible with any document MS Office might produce with openxml, including Novells. Even if my assumptions are incorrect (I'm convinced they are not), it will still be possible for MS to "extend" openxml later with new shiny features that will effectively keep documents locked in.
I can't imagine that any intelligent human will not realize this. The only explanation for openxml approval by ECMA, ISO, or the State of Massachusetts is corruption and bribery.

Re:Microsoft lobbying

[BruceCage]

IT Conversations: Gary Edwards
OpenDocument and the Move to XML Formats
http://osc.gigavox.com/audio/download/itconversati ons-1810.mp3
[runtime: 01:14:48, 34.2 mb, recorded 2007-04-30]

OpenDocument expert Gary Edwards believes that adopting OpenXML means lock-in to Microsoft products on an unprecedented scale. In this podcast, Edwards defends OpenDocument's capabilities but also challenges the ODF community to out-innovate Microsoft to provide a competitive alternative to Microsoft's lock-in. He also challenges the open standards community to focus on delivering alternatives to Microsoft Exchange and SharePoint servers. Edwards also describes Open Document Foundation's da Vinci plug-ins for Microsoft Office. Listen to it and see for yourself.

can someone explain

[rtphokie]

Why the rest of the country, much less the rest of the world, cares about what Massachusetts thinks is standard?

Re:can someone explain

[risk one]

Because this is the first crack in the dam of Microsoft's vendor lock-in. If Massachusetts stores and releases all government material in an open format, then Microsoft must support that format, or lose a lot of business. Remember that Massachusetts is the home of MIT, lots of businesses there that care about government regulation. And once a couple businesses in Massachusetts stop using office, it can spread. They email some document to another company across the globe, in ODF, then that company comes into contact with ODF, and it will have to either install separate software for it, or even switch away from office, if Microsoft still refuses to support ODF.

Of course, if they do support ODF, then they lose their vendor lock-in outright. No problem switching to OpenOffice if all your clients have Office, just send your stuff in ODF, and they can open it. Microsoft chose the one way out that would let them have some control, develop their own open standard, and lobby like mad to get everyone to use that instead of ODF. That way, at least they own the standard, and that's what Microsoft's always been after.

Re:can someone explain

[Ngarrang]

... personally I think it should be approved; once the ECMA and ISO approval is done. You have apparently not read the OOXML standard, or you might think differently on the subject. I have read it. It is has to be one the poorest attempts at a "standard" I have ever seen. It is incredibly complex and obtuse. Go, check it out. Please.

Re:can someone explain

[Coryoth]

Since microsoft is going for ECMA and ISO standardization of thier file format, personally I think it should be approved; once the ECMA and ISO approval is done. Given some of what has achieved ECMA and ISO standardization, and indeed, the quality of the documentation of the "standard" that OOXML purports to be, you're basically just asking for rubber stamps, not openness. Then again, this is government, so perhaps rubber stamps are actually more important than the qualities the rubber stamps are supposed to guarantee.

This does raise an interesting question though, because MS is successfully slipping through the door here. It is a case of following the letter of, but not the spirit of, the law. They have provided a "standard" that is just good enough, just open enough, just documented enough, to meet the ISO and ECMA requirements (and really, it is pretty borderline on that, and could still go either way). At the same time it has a whole host of what are essentially closed unimplementable features riddled through it, guaranteeing lock in which MS so desperately needs (do they really? Is MS Office so mediocre that it can't actually fight toe to toe? I suspect it would do fine; it may lose some market share, but would probably cope well). The question is: how do we close the loophole? Exactly what needs to be asked for in a standard to ensure it is actually an open standard?

For the most part this hasn't been a problem; people seeking standards mostly wanted them to be universally implementable. The idea of someone trying to get an ISO standard that was useless to all but the submitter; well, that was rather ridiculous -- it would seem to be defeating the point. Now, however, it is very much the case. So what needs to be asked for to actually guarantee openness? This is not a trivial question.

ODF is not being dismissed

[eck011219]

and weakens earlier Massachusetts support for the Open Document Format.

It weakens ODF's potential for exclusive adoption in Massachusetts. It would be very unlikely that a state (particularly one as large as Massachusetts) would ever completely refuse to accept documents in a format as soon-to-be-common (like it or not) as OOXML.

Granted if they did it, they'd have a better chance of getting private vendors to use ODF than, say, Montana. But you've got to figure that as OOXML gets slowly adopted, there are going to be a lot of outside vendors (not to mention other states) with whom Massachusetts will have to interact who will make the jump to OOXML. And if you think the conversion from old Word to new Word is rife with peril, the conversion from ODF to OOXML and back would likely cause quite a bit of inefficiency and lost data.

The noOOXML.org petition

[pieterh]

Yes, Microsoft are moving heaven and earth to get OOXML stamped as an ISO standard.

One example: in Italy's technical committee a few weeks back there were 11 organisations. When Microsoft had finished mobilising their partners, there were 70. No surprise that Italy will vote "yes" on the OOXML vote. It is disgraceful; ISO will become a "made in Redmond" rubber-stamping tool that helps Microsoft sell upgrades and kick away ODF.

There is an online petition with 16,000 signatures and a lot more information on the noOOXML.org site.

Everyone who cares about open standards needs to sign this petition.

Re:The noOOXML.org petition

[Danse]

There's no irony in complaining about a corporation mobilizing its partners, but closing with your own attempt to mobilize your partners. None at all. Partners? I'm thinking that we're just talking about people here, not organizations that depend on the parent-poster for their financial welfare. I also don't see any irony involved in pointing out that letting Microsoft purchase the approval for their standard doesn't benefit anyone but Microsoft, and that if you agree, you can sign a petition stating that. No financial involvement or coercion of any sort is involved. Definitely not the case with Microsoft's partners.

Multiple Programs/Vendors

[QMO]

Wasn't one of the requirements for eligibility of a format the existence of multiple word processors (spreadsheet programs, presentation programs, etc.) that read and write the format?

Did that change, or is someone else licensed to use their formats to write competing software with MS formats, or is there some other way that MS is trying to get around that?

Why support any lock in?

[jorghis]

So you guys are mad that there isnt going to be a law forcing states to be locked into ODF? Can you imagine the outrage if it was the other way around and there was a law requiring some open MS standard to be used for all government work? Is it really so ridiculous to say that people should just use whatever standard they feel is best for the task at hand. Personally I would think any law locking people in to one standard is a terrible idea regardless of whether its by IBM, MS, or any other big tech corporation.

OOXML is an open standard. People are making a mountain out of a molehill based on the corner case of importing a document from wordperfect of many years ago and having a clause in the formatting that just says "this footer here shall be aligned as it would be in wordperfect x.y" or whatever. For all intents and purposes its open, people are just nitpicking over the fact that importing files from long ago and having the description for how a few obscure formatting issues should be handled is a little vague.

Re:Why support any lock in?

[kebes]

You seem to be confused as to what the point of a standard is, and what the point of an open standard, specifically, is.

Is it really so ridiculous to say that people should just use whatever standard they feel is best for the task at hand.

Well the whole purpose of a "standard" is to get a group of people using the same rules, so that interoperability and transfer of data becomes much easier. Of course there will always be multiple standards, and different groups may decide that one standard fits their needs better than another. No one is arguing that point.

So you guys are mad that there isnt going to be a law forcing states to be locked into ODF?

Actually the proposed law is that the government should be using an open standard. No one is 'forcing' you (or any person or any company) to use this standard. The purpose of the law is to say that the government has a responsibility to use a standard that is open, so that archiving of data is easier (and can be accessed years later), and so that all citizens have access to the data. This makes sense: the government is an instrument of the people, and all the citizens of a democracy should have easy access to government data (and for all time!).

It's rather disingenuous to say "locked into ODF" since ODF is an open standard which means that anyone can generate their own ODF reader and writer. In fact, every computer on the market right now can basically read ODF (in a primitive way), since any modern OS can extract a zip archive and read the plaintext that is inside. Yes, ODF is really that open! You can read it and work with it with very simple tools. There are also many full office suites that can read/write ODF. So it's hard to see how you can say that the government will be "locked into ODF" when it will be trivial for them to convert the data to other formats, copy the data elsewhere, extract it for other use, automate searching through the data, etc. Where's the lockin?

The point with ODF is that you are not locked in. It is so open that it is very easy to convert your data, using a wide variety of tools (many of them freely available). The same cannot be said for MS's offering... which is why it cannot be legitimately called "open" and is a poor match to the needs of archiving and disseminating government data.

Re:Why support any lock in?

[oyenstikker]

"OOXML is an open standard."

Can you read the specification and then write software that implements it? No? How is that an open standard?

Re:Why support any lock in?

[Allador]

... ODF is an open standard which means that anyone can generate their own ODF reader and writer. In fact, every computer on the market right now can basically read ODF (in a primitive way), since any modern OS can extract a zip archive and read the plaintext that is inside. Yes, ODF is really that open! You can read it and work with it with very simple tools. This is exactly the case with OOXML as well. It's the same setup. Open standard, stored as XML file(s) then zipped up.

The point with ODF is that you are not locked in. It is so open that it is very easy to convert your data, using a wide variety of tools (many of them freely available). The same cannot be said for MS's offering... which is why it cannot be legitimately called "open" ... What is it about OOXML that is not open here? The only part of the spec that doesnt have enough details to implement are bug-preserving corner-cases from old versions. And MS SPECIFICALLY says in the spec that you should not implement these, they're only there as a marker, so you can convert to something else. You're very specifically instructed NOT to implement those tags, because they shouldnt be preserved.

Idiots!

[Nom du Keyboard]

Idiots! The whole point of a standard is to have one! But then again we're talking about Massachusetts.

Ecma sounds like a skin disease.

Let the government know how you feel

[tedivm]

The Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick, has a website that allows people to create issues and vote on ones they care about. There is an open issue on this right now-
http://devalpatrick.com/issue/opendocument
So go let your voices be heard.

Irony: OO reads old word better than word.

[Maxo-Texas]

I have word 95 documents that crash word or that load but look weird.

The fix is to read them into openoffice 2.0 (or higher) and save them as word documents.
OO is better and more stable reading many of my older word95 documents up to about 4 mb in size than Word 2003 to 2007.

I've also had word 2007 documents become corrupted so that they crash word when I try to read them. However, openoffice will read them and then I can save them often with no apparent loss of data (pointing to corrupt section headers I think).