Slashdot Mirror
Texas Legislature Considers Open Document Formats
An anonymous reader notes that a legislator in Texas has introduced a bill to require open document formats in all state government business. The bill is carefully worded such that only ODF could pass its test as "open." The story is covered by the Fort Worth Star Telegram, which is careful to be even-handed, giving Microsoft's spokesman equal time. A ZDNet blogger notes that the bill, introduced by a Democrat in a state whose politics is dominated by Republicans, faces chances that "...fall somewhere east of slim and west of none."
...of red state democrats.
Your comments are baffling and boarder on insanity.
whilst it's always good to see genuinely open formats in use, isn't there already an ISO standard document format? If there is, is it better to use the ISO standard or an open standard?
And semi-dirty to dirty politicking if that doesn't convince them. Remember Massachusetts.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
The bill is carefully worded such that only ODF could pass its test as "open."
That's favoring one vendor over another.
I totally agree with you there, and that is what I came here to say.
Microsoft Office, ODF, PDF and XHTML would be much better,
By suggesting MS Office, you miss the point of open formats. Suppose the government saves something, and doesn't open it again for 30 years. This happens a lot for archives. It will be tough to impossible to track down the specific version of MS Office so they can open it. They likely won't even know which version to track down. PDF or XHTML, on the other hand, are open formats, and are unlikely to die soon. XHTML has the additional advantage that it is text, and even if 50 years from now, nobody remembers how to render XHTML, they can get the content by reading the file in a text editor.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
George W Busch was the best President we ever done had, a good god fearing Christian man. God bless his soul
That's favoring one vendor over another.
Hmm... one vendor? Lets see who supports ODF.
AbiWord, Google Docs, IBM Lotus Symphony, KOffice, NeoOffice, OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, SftMaker Office, Corel WordPerfect Office, Zoho Office.
Of those, which is the one vendor that is being favored?
The specification is also open for others to use in either free or proprietary applications. Since the spec is open and there is open software to access the format, the documents created in it should always have the possibility of being accessed.
The ability to switch to open standards and open source software can also save local and federal governments millions of dollars.
If you haven't been paying attention, local and state governments are having a hard time financially. The economic downturn has reduced their income. I'd much rather my government use open source than raise my property taxes.
Dual Opteron < $600
Actually, it is favoring all vendors....over just one. With them picking one, non-proprietary format...then, any document application can be considered and used to read/write.
You said it yourself that MS can operate with ODF, so, it isn't like MS is being locked out here.
As long as they pick one format, that no one company 'owns', then that sounds to me like the way to go for our public documents. And, often times...as the govt. goes,, so does the general public. Much like hardware is becoming commodity, so are office applications (especially spreadsheets and word processors). They should be treated as such.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
While PDF is open, it also allows heavy DRM. I have documentation for some software in PDF format that requires you to login to their servers every DAY just to read the manual.
While most PDFs are open, it is possible that a PDF itself can contain locks.
The bill was not specifically tailored for ODF, but currently ODF can pass, OOXML can not. Read the actual bill proposed before agreeing with the parent, you are agreeing with someone who didn't read it.
If you live in Texas, get involved with your reps to see that this gets passed.
open documents means the government stays accessible to all. There is no reason not to want that in a republic.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, it's favoring several vendors over one. Microsoft Office 2007 is the only program that reliably supports OOXML (and doesn't even support the ISO standard version). Several office suites reliably support ODF. PDF and XHTML are open formats, so those could be easily supported in addition to ODF, but once you add OOXML to that list, you add a Microsoft dependency.
It's called a PDF...
I have a bad feeling about this...
If a proposal is intentionally worded such that only one vendor can pass, then that is indeed a problem. However, there is no inherent need to be "fair" to non-open vendors any more than there is a need to be "fair" to overpriced contractors. Especially given network effects, popularity is a poor proxy for preference, and neither is at all worthwhile as a proxy for openness.
If a vendor can't, or won't deliver an open format, fuck them. Fairness doesn't require that all vendors succeed, just that they all get to play by the same rules. If the rules favor ODF exclusively, then they suck. If the rules happen to exclude docx, because of "renderlikeword6" or any of the other horrors, then that is fine. If you want to be considered open, write a better spec.
...right? I mean, that's their stated goal.
Oh wait, no. Politicians only do things that help them personally.
I love you, U.S.A. political system.
...the mighty herds of MS lobbyists swarming in their 1000s down to texas at this very moment.
Hm. It's the fault of the republicans I guess. Evil conservative types, wanting lock-ins. Definitely a republican problem. If we had more democrats in Texas, we would have more open standards! Just look at California, New York, Washington... look at all those open standards being used by those states! And democrat-liking Hollywood! Hollywood is a huge "open source," open document, non-DRM fan. What we need to do is legislate open formats, that way private companies can't be standards incompliant! That will fix the free market, private enterprise will flourish, etc.
[/sarcasm]
I'm not ever really come across evidence one way or another on this type issue.
If anything, I'd say that BOTH parties, in general, vote towards proprietary solutions, since they both are so heavily bought/rented by corporate interests.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No. it should mandate formats that anyone can use and is open. This way all vendors can use it at no cost. ODF is a good example of an open format.
proprietary formats aren't any good.
By catering to the most popular, you help entrance a monopoly. By having an open document, you help keep the playing field level.
So you want the government to spend more money so it can support proprietary formats? what happens in MS changes? or Adobe? You are screwed.
open format usable by all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Indeed. I think it's important to realize here that the government isn't mandating OpenOffice usage, just ODF file formats. Nothing prevents Microsoft from integrating ODF support into Office in meaningful ways and remaining competitive with the other players.
They don't want that though. Without lock-in on the MS file formats, they can't keep their customers hog tied to MS Office. It's simple business. I wish politicians would just realize that until they put Microsoft in a position of equal footing, they will always be paying too much for software.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
They can keep them tied to Word (it's still the "safe" choice) but they lose their fiat pricing ability.
Anytime their prices get too steep, you roll out a "test" project with some ODF competitors and microsoft cuts your prices by 50%.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Don't let this thread turn into "Lets bash Texas!" please. I just see it coming, so I write this in hopes to get people thinking.
I recently moved from Washington State to Houston, TX. Things are different here, that's no joke. Some people honestly think of this state as a sovereign country sometimes (and they were for a time... unfortunately). But people are people anywhere you go, and for the most part just want to be left alone down here, free from a government bothering them. This is fairly ingrained into their constitution too; especially as it was re-written when the old southern boys managed to get control back of the government from the highly obtrusive Northern States back in the past-Civil Wars days. They wanted to make sure that the State government was mostly ineffective and powerless so they could be left alone.
What this boils down to, is a State Legislature that is inherently designed to be weak and making change difficult, especially at a state level. In every two year period they are allowed to meet for 140 days (barring a special session being called). Can you imagine your state legislature only meeting for 70 days a year?
That being said, I want to DISPEL any preconceived notions you have about Democrats and Republicans when you look at the Texas State legislature. To get anything done is this ridiculous state, they have to actually work together. Let me repeat that. They have to work together. Partisan lines blur! This political attitude can be seen when you look at our nimrod of an ex-president, all he wanted was to get both Repub. and Dems. sides to work together. Lo and Behold, the political arena in the nation's capital was drastically different (and in my opinion, he was well over his head). Getting back on topic, when you have only 140 days to work with in 2 years, and you have to pass a friggin budget among so many other things, this shows how little Texans trust their government. But these days, no one in their right mind would trust any government at any level.
All I'm saying is, don't generalize Democrat and Republican so heavily in a state legislature. I'm sure most states in this country are the same way, by which I mean, their political arena is drastically different than the National arena.
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
No, Microsoft Office **is not** open.
ODF is, and ODF can be repurposed easily.
If Microsoft can support ODF, then requiring "ODF" is hardly favoring on vendor over another.
Next time, you might want to rework the canned MSFT Technology Evangelist script you were given, and tweak it a bit prior to posting.
That's favoring one vendor over another.
Ummm...ODF is a vendor? I think not. Microsoft is more than welcome to join the rest of the world and support ODF. How many vendors offer products that support ODF versus how many vendors support Microsoft's proprietary formats? You say Microsoft supports ODF. If I'm not mistaken that's through a third party add-on. But if they support ODF with their products, what's the problem? How is requiring ODF excluding them or favoring any other vendor? Is it because Microsoft would actually have to compete based on performance and price? Oh what a travesty that would be. Microsoft actually having to compete.
Quote from the article:
At a hearing on the bill then, Microsoft national technology officer Stuart McKee described it as anti-competitive and warned that it could be the equivalent of the state "picking Betamax when everyone else goes with VHS."
How can using a format that is free and unencumbered, that anyone can implement and is implemented in a number of different products "anti-competitive"?
Who is John Galt?
Nope, there are many vendors that can pass, with their products supporting ODF.
Your argument is still born, sorry.
Favoring ODF is not really favoring one vendor over another, there are several vendors who support ODF.
You could also argue that requiring tenders to be submitted in english is favoring one vendor over another, but the fact is you need to set a standard and one that is openly documented is the only sensible choice.
Anyone can learn english if they want to tender for contracts in an english speaking country, anyone is free to implement ODF into their program, as they are also free to implement PDF or XHTML.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Wasn't Betamax the better of the two, and VHS only won because of porn? How does that analogy make any sense?
And don't forget the MS Office ODF plugins.
While PDF is open, it also allows heavy DRM.
But that is entirely at the discretion of the person who made the PDF, rather than at the whim of Adobe.
The bill is carefully worded such that only ODF could pass its test as "open."
That's favoring one vendor over another.
First, while the summary makes the claim only ODF could pass, that's doesn't seem to be true if you actually read it. Second, even if it did, that's favoring a format, not a vendor.
What the government should be doing is mandating a variety of formats based on the preferences of the public.
No, they should be establishing criteria for formats that don't inhibit innovation, but do ensure the benefits of open formats.
Microsoft Office, ODF, PDF and XHTML would be much better, and it wouldn't be that hard for the government to support all of those.
ODF and XHTML both meet the criteria listed in the bill. PDF is a publishing format, not an interchange format for editable documents and does not apply in this case. MSOffice formats don't meet the criteria and would not be allowed, which is a good thing since each one is lacking in an important way. Old formats are not open to all to implement. Their new format is not implemented by multiple vendors and is restricted by patents.
After all, Microsoft Office can or does support all of those formats...
Well, MSOffice doesn't support their new format yet and some other companies will never be able to because of patent issues. Their old format is not published in its entirety and can never be implemented by other vendors.
...mandate that all public records be saved 4 times with File->Save As or a macro that does the same thing.
Sounds like a waste of disk and bandwidth when files are transferred. What's the advantage over saving as ODF?
It's pretty sad, but I've heard exactly that from some of the people around here.
The one where they legally require you to buy your own private insurance and then call it universal healthcare? Yeah, I'm sure that one is costing the state billions.
It is, because if you cannot afford health insurance, the state picks up the tab. that's the whole key. Massachussetts has the lowest uninsured percentage in the country, by far, but it is expensive to do.
This is my sig.
George W. Bush was born in Connecticut.
Don't forget MS Office 2007, SP2. They are supposed to be including support for it in the next service pack, that is due out very, very soon.
What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Go right ahead, Ballmer. You can bribe those oily Europeans until they're shining your car, but I dare you to budge the courageous and independent public officials of Texas! They cannot be bought and will stand tall against oh my god who am I kidding here open document formats are doomed.
---don't make me break out my red pen.
XHTML has the additional advantage that it is text, and even if 50 years from now, nobody remembers how to render XHTML, they can get the content by reading the file in a text editor.
Also, don't forget that ODF is really little more than XML files zipped together in a single container. Try unzipping an ODF or ODS file—you will find several XML files for formatting, content, etc in there. Personally, I would prefer XHTML or XML files to PDF, simply because I can use vi to read them, if I had to.
$> man woman $> Segmentation fault. (Core dumped)
While PDF is open, it also allows heavy DRM. I have documentation for some software in PDF format that requires you to login to their servers every DAY just to read the manual.
Why not just use PDF/A? It's a subset of the PDF 1.4 standard that's designed for archival purposes, so I believe that all the DRM stuff would be ripped out. It's also an ISO standard, ISO 19005-1:2005.
Was going to say the same thing!
No, Republicans hate democrats and vote against them regardless of the merits of the bill.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
And vice versa.
+2? Seriously, how trollish and/or flamebaity does one need to be before being appropriatly modded down?
Who is the vendor for ODF? OpenOffice? KOffice? NeoOffice?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
That's favoring one vendor over another.
No. No it's not. Any vendor can, and several do support the format. That's the point of an open format ! If it were limited to one vendor, it wouldn't be an open format!!
For a while, there was only one vendor refusing to consider supporting ODF. After all, an open format would put a serious crimp in that vendor's plans for world domination through inescapable lock-in. However, even that vendor has finally announced plans to support ODF in future versions of their software (support is already available through free third-party plugins). In fact, requiring ODF is very nearly favoring all vendors over none. Or something like that. :)
(Is it just me, or does the grass in here seem awfully artificial today, somehow....)
Saying Microsoft Office supports XHTML output is like saying that "dousing with petrol and throwing on a match" can be used to light the candles on a birthday cake.
Strictly true, but please don't let anyone do it.
[maybe the latest iteration is different, but allow me to apply a deal of scepticism]
Well, if you get all your news from CNN and / or Fox News I guess that would be your perspective, but in reality, I see that both sides teen to vote within their respective ideologies, modified by who has paid them the most money.
I know it's probably difficult to understand, but Republicans and Democrats do tend to differ on a large number of issues. Hatred hasn't anything to do with it, at least not hatred of the people. It's more extreme dislike of the others policies
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
The bill is carefully worded such that only ODF could pass its test as "open."
That's favoring one vendor over another.
I totally agree with you there, and that is what I came here to say.
I think it depends. Is it really designed to force people to use OpenOffice, or just ODF? I believe that OpenOffice isn't the only program that can read ODF, so there isn't a limit to one vendor. Microsoft can implement ODF.
But even if only ODF passes, was that intentional, or is ODF the only viable office suite format right now? I could imagine someone implementing valid rules for "openness" and it just working out that MSO files don't qualify. Text, HTML, and PDF may be fine under some circumstances, but they aren't fully-features office documents.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123698935539126273.html
----
Among the reasons for Nebraska's economic strength is a long history of strong executive leadership and an independent legislature. But mainly these factors exist because we have an inquiring public that demands to know how tax dollars are spent. That's called accountability, and it was the inspiration behind my effort to create NebraskaSpending.com, a searchable, public database that discloses every aspect of state government spending. By allowing the public to examine how its money is spent, we are equipping Nebraskans with great tools to hold their government accountable.
Kentucky, Missouri and other states also have established, or are establishing, similar Web sites. These sites have cost states millions. We did ours for $38,000.
----
Nebraska sets a great example to follow when it comes to open government. While what they did did not specifically cover the format of said documents they did present expenditures in a method by which citizens of their state and others can see where the money is going. That is far more important to me than what format the information is in.
Look, presentation is key, not the format of which it is stored. Yes, it would good if the data was stored in a truly neutral format it does guarantee access to it or easy access.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They only way for ODF to fail is if big-business buys the result. I'm sure America has learnt over the past few months not to let big business dictate the politics.
Ha ha ha ha.
That's favoring one vendor over another. What the government should be doing is mandating a variety of formats based on the preferences of the public. Microsoft Office, ODF, PDF and XHTML would be much better, and it wouldn't be that hard for the government to support all of those. After all, Microsoft Office can or does support all of those formats, so it's not like the government would have to do more than install a little extra software and mandate that all public records be saved 4 times with File->Save As or a macro that does the same thing.
Actually mandating a properly defined STANDARD such as ODF is precisely NOT favouring one supplier over another.
That really is the whole point of standards.
The rest of your message sounds as if you either work for or own shares in Microsoft.
Nah, it's not so much that their votes have been bought by the big companies, but because both democrats and republicans don't want their butts on the line when it breaks. Every politician is an expert at dodging responsibility, regardless of party affiliation. A gigantic myth out there right now is that technical support for open source software does not exist, and so if you want to make sure that when it breaks someone will fix it, you must use proprietary software. It doesn't matter if it's true, what matters is that technically ignorant people really believe it.
The Microsfot answer to ODF, though approved by an ex-standard body (turned MS plaything) is NOT an actual open standard:
- no usable specs
- no reference open implementation
- just one implementation (ms office), and maybe not even that
Which is why it is important to word open document laws in such a way as to filter it out. Requesting an open implementation and at least 2 full implementations from different vendors does the trick nicely, and probably will for a long time.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Ok, I can understand ODF for collaboration, but is that the best format for publication? Why not PDF or XPS?
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
Does someone want to tell me what's wrong with plain text?
It's expressive enough for legal documents... Are they using ClipArt, for Pete's sake?
Besides that, it takes a tiny fraction of the disk space or any other format; its standards are stable; it's platform- and application-independent; you can search, scrape, and analyze it with extreme ease; and they can use Unicode if they like non-Latin characters.
I'm not seeing the drawback here. No Wingdings?
"Each electronic document created, exchanged, or maintained by a state agency must be created, exchanged, or maintained ..."
Sounds to me like it's drafted up by the Department of Redundancy Department. I didn't know the Democrats have one?
PDF has been suggested in other proposals for publication.
XPS is proprietary.
It has always been policy of many government bodies that at least two vendors of any government purchases be available for anything it buys. This is precisely why Intel was required to license x86 to AMD. (The U.S. Federal government has such requirements on such things and for Intel to be an appropriate supplier, compatible hardware had to be available from another supplier.) It make perfect sense for other government bodies to require similar measures of its vendors.
And if I understand correctly, there is already an ODF implementation for MS Office... or one in the works. In any case, since ODF is completely documented and the information is available to Microsoft programmers, there is nothing to stop them from competing within ODF. Of course the fear of embrace and extend is always a problem... (http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-134250/microsoft-hijacking-odf:the-freedom-to-embrace-and-extend)
Quote from the article:
At a hearing on the bill then, Microsoft national technology officer Stuart McKee described it as anti-competitive and warned that it could be the equivalent of the state "picking Betamax when everyone else goes with VHS."
That's seriously from TFA? While the analogy of choosing one video cassette format over another may be apt, I think they have that reversed. Betamax would more closely resemble Microsoft's formats than it would ODF. If memory serves me correctly, you could only get Betamax from Sony, and they didn't license it out for 3rd parties to produce equipment for. VHS was licensed far and wide to anyone with sufficient funds, and if you had to pick one or the other as an ODF analog, VHS would be it.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Aside from my quibbles that multiple implementations or "uses XML" should not really be part of the definition of an open format, there is not a clear way to interpret the bill as excluding OOXML, the format MS rammed through as an ISO standard to compete with ODF. So if the intent is to support ODF and disallow OOXML, I don't see that this will do it. (The bill as written requires documents to be an open document format, which the bill defines as one that is XML, open, interoperable across platforms and applications, published without restrictions or royalties, independently implemented by multiple SW providers, controlled by an open industry organization -- could arguably apply to both ODF and OOXML.)
And boy oh boy, is Aman Batheja, the author of the Star Telegram article, confused. First of all, he confuses "open document formats" and "open source." He writes, "State Rep. Marc Veasey is pushing lawmakers to require all state agencies to create and share their electronic documents in open-source formats." The bill has nothing to do with open source, or programming of any kind! The bill simply states that the file format for DOCUMENTS should be open, like ODF (and unlike, .doc/.ppt).
He goes on, in his confusion, "It could also mean that many state workers may see familiar Microsoft products such as Word and Excel replaced with lesser-known competitors on their work computers." Again, wrong. MS Office 2007 already has an ODF plugin, so you can read and save to ODF formats from within MS Office if you want to keep using MS Office.
remember this is the state that the Bush family came from
You should stick to commenting on things you know about. George W was born in Connecticut, and George H W was born in Massachusetts. They are only here now because this is where they made their money.
Besides, around here 'open document' means we cross out 'evolution' and insert 'intelligent design'.
How is the parent flamebait mods? It's completely factual, at least from what I've ready about MS Office 2007 SP2.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
I think the "Communist" angle is what they are referring to. If something doesn't cost money the first person to yell, "its communistic!" wins the Republican vote. But you are absolutely correct. They are BOTH bought and paid for.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Thanks for pointing out just how Yankee the Bush family is. Though, I think your beating a dead armadillo. They've named highways and are in the process of naming libraries in each other's honor. We'll never get rid of the belief they were from the south, let alone Texas.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
what about rich text format, RTF?
there is not a clear way to interpret the bill as excluding OOXML, the format MS rammed through as an ISO standard to compete with ODF.
The version of OOXML ratified as a standard doesn't even have one implementation I know of, let alone two on multiple platforms. Also the restrictions and royalties clause and IP/patent clauses would likely be an issue since MS's licensing of their format significantly restricts competitors.
I contacted Representative Branch's office, and I sent to Senator West's office too asking that he introduce a companion bill there, or support it in any other ways he can.
You just had to bring up the Y-word. I had hoped to avoid such ugliness. However, the phrase "beating a dead armadillo" has provided a mental image that should keep me entertained for the rest of the afternoon. Thanks.
After all Microsoft supports ODF, they are even in the OASIS Committee.
Indeed, there is no business reason for Microsoft to shoot that bill down except ideology.
Open XML is a dead horse.
So far the only difference I can really see is:
1. One group likes to cut taxes and spend
2. One group likes to raise taxes and spend
Frankly, I'd just like one that went for lower govt. intrusion, and smaller govt. If they did that, the need to tax would naturally go down.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
>
Hmm, he is saying "... Word and Excel replaced with lesser-known competitors...." like it would be a bad thing.
Sucks to be him.
Interesting how you leap to defend your beloved Republicans. You won't tolerate even the implication that they aren't the perfectly benevolent masters they claim to be.
Stop being a partisan idiot, please.
"it's important to realize here that the government isn't mandating OpenOffice usage, just ODF file formats"
It's hard to realize that when the coverage outright lies about that being the case.
TFA: "It could also mean that many state workers may see familiar Microsoft products such as Word and Excel replaced with lesser-known competitors on their work computers."
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
which is careful to be even-handed, giving Microsoft's spokesman equal time.
That is not even remotely "even-handed". Even handed would be if M$ was given time proportional to the number of people they represent, which is practically nil.
People, including the media, endlessly confuse "one dollar, one vote" with "one person, one vote". It's time they stopped doing that.
"And therefor, you must acquit!"
Loser. You should use Emacs, there's a key combo (Ctrl+ Alt + ~ + \ + O + D + F) to unzip, parse the XML, and display ODF content on screen... why would you ever want to use Vi for reading ODF?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
WTF? Is McKee so confused that he messed up the analogy? Is he trying to head off the most apt analogy to choosing ODF over MSO formats? Clearly MSO:ODF::Betamax:VHS.
If the legislators McKee was talking to couldn't understand this, they have no business being involved in any decision-making body.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
They don't want that though.
MSOffice 2007 SP2 will add ODF support.
That's how I always took it. Good to see corroboration. (Might have felt a bit paranoid without it.)
Anyway, parent thinks he's invented something new?
There's precedent for sarcasm marks (sarcasm points), irony marks (irony points), doubt points, certitude points, acclamation points, authority points, indignation points, love points, and percontation points (rhetorical punctation).
I recommend for him a bit of research before he thinks he's invented something and certainly before he commends others to action. And before he names the find after himself.
In what bastardized version of Emacs is there a C-M-~ keybinding by default? Is that one of the many questionable features of XEMACS?
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
Indeed, there is no business reason for Microsoft to shoot that bill down except ideology.
Of course there is business reason. .doc or .docx in the other hand, Microsoft is favored.
If the government uses ODF, there is a truly level playing field.
If the government uses
The one where they legally require you to buy your own private insurance and then call it universal healthcare? Yeah, I'm sure that one is costing the state billions.
It is, because if you cannot afford health insurance, the state picks up the tab. that's the whole key.
Except the state doesn't pick up the tab for everyone who can not afford health insurance. A few months ago CNN had special report on health care and part of it was about the Massachusetts system. One person in the report was a DJ for a radio station and his employer didn't offer health insurance. So he checked into getting his own. He said part of the state law was that a person who did not have or buy insurance had to pay a fine but that it would be cheaper for him to pay the fine than it was to pay for insurance. At leas the first year, because the fine increased after the first year. He simply couldn't afford insurance and the state was not helping him. According to "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America" the cost for the insurance has gone up not down.
Should there be a Law?
If memory serves me correctly, you could only get Betamax from Sony, and they didn't license it out for 3rd parties to produce equipment for.
Your memory is wrong then. Besides Sony, other companies offered BetaMax video recorders.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
ISO ODF is not sufficiently specified to satisfy that. If you had two independent implementations that went by the spec, they would in fact have interoperability problems.
In practice, pretty much all ODF applications don't try to implement ISO ODF. They try to implement OpenOffice ODF. They get the spec for that by looking at what OpenOffice does in those areas where the ISO ODF spec is deficient.
There is work underway to fix this, but that's still a ways off.
We've learned from the past there are 2 ways to lock-in an open standard/format, of which Internet Explorer is the perfect example: stagnation and implementation-bugs.
New things are always on the horizon
Doc is just the legacy format, fine for elementary stuff and sufficiently decoded, with no hidden secret left, and docx is a technology dead end, everybody knows that. I think Microsoft is really committed to use odf.
I'm not sure if it would be that difficult to read a document in the WordPerfect 5.1 format right now since the current version of WordPerfect and both OpenOffice.org and StarOffice will open the file.
It depends on whether the file format was proprietary, and MS's OOXML is proprietary. OO.org can open some MS file formats but it does not display them all correctly.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If I'm not mistaken, a democrat also slept with I don't know how many women. And you are right they are rented; one of the many fallacies of a democracy.