Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New York and Minnesota Publish Open Document Studies

Posted by Soulskill on from the jury-is-in-but-still-out dept.

Multiple readers have written to point out that New York and Minnesota have reached the end of their lengthy deliberations on open document formats. Both reports agree that an open format would be beneficial, but neither were willing to endorse a particular choice. New York's executive summary notes, "The State Legislature should not mandate in statute the use of any specific document creation and preservation technologies, as technologies can easily become outdated." Minnesota's report claims, "The marketplace is still in flux, and it is not certain that a single standard will emerge." In related news, yesterday's announcement from Microsoft that they would provide support for ODF in a future update to Office 2007 has EU antitrust investigators optimistic, but cautious. Microsoft has said that the ISO process was what prevented OOXML from receiving support in the same time frame.

3 of 62 comments (clear)

  1. Goes to show by chuckymonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Outdated? Really? Did they even bother to ask anyone that knows anything about opensource? Open standards means that even if it does become outdated there can still be an implementation no matter what. It's the best insurance against having outdated formats. I guess I'm off to write a few paper letters.

    --
    "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
  2. Damn that ISO by sc0ob5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah I'm sure it was the ISO process that prevented it from getting support, not the shoddy standard that is OOXML.

  3. Justification for inaction by Excelcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really, the use of fear of z standard becoming outdated is just a justification for inaction. There is no answer to that in any sort of technical field. What can you say when technology will always improve, standards will always become outdated. Saying you shouldn't adopt a standard because it will become outdated is precisely akin to saying you shouldn't drive a car because it will eventually run out of gas. It's just a mask to allow them to justify to the public why they won't move forward.

    If fear of a standard becoming obsolete is a reason for not adopting it, I'm curious as to how they justify any of their IT budget?