Slashdot Mirror
New York and Minnesota Publish Open Document Studies
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in statute the use of any specific document creation and preservation technologies, as technologies can easily become outdated."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.
Outdated?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 Open standards means that even if it does become outdated there can still be an implementation no matter what. It's the best insurance against having outdated formats.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
Yeah I'm sure it was the ISO process that prevented it from getting support, not the shoddy standard that is OOXML.
Really, the use of fear of z standard becoming outdated is just a justification for inaction.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 What can you say when technology will always improve, standards will always become outdated. Saying you shouldn't adopt a standard because it will become outdated is precisely akin to saying you shouldn't drive a car because it will eventually run out of gas.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?
Legislation is difficult to change once passed. Competing interests (or lack of interests) and simple inertia mean that whatever gets written into law stays there for a while. It makes sense for the law to say that the standards should be open, that they should be chosen by a particular state agency, or that they should be reviewed every X years. But writing the choice of standards into law is very inflexible. There is a reason why we have building codes and highway codes. This doesn't say that administrative rulemaking is less subject to lobbying and corruption, or that it is more transparent. But on these counts it is no worse than primary legislation.
Both reports agree that an open format would be beneficial, but neither were willing to endorse a particular choice.
The State Legislature should not mandate in statute the use of any specific document creation and preservation technologies , as technologies can easily become outdated.
Looks like Microsoft has effectively brainwashed these clueless legislators.
Formats and technologies are completely different things. ODF is an Open Format. Open Office is a technological implementation of this format. Microsoft has recently merely proclaimed that they will also be implementing ODF in the current version of Office.
OOXML claims to be an open ISO certified format. But as on date, there is no technological, compliant iomplementation... in fact, the specification is not yet documented, as required by ISO processes.
Why can't they simply legislate on ODF, and then go about choosing the ideal technological implementation of the same?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....