Slashdot Mirror


Study Says OOXML Unsuitable For Norwegian Government

angry tapir writes "Microsoft's XML-based office document format, OOXML, does not meet the requirements for governmental use, according to a new report published by the Norwegian Agency for Public Management and eGovernment (DIFI). The agency wants to start a debate over the report as part of its work on standards in the Norwegian government. (As we discussed a week ago, Denmark has already decided to choose ODF over OOXML.)"

9 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. What's in a name by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Funny

    DIFI's[1] report was written by Hypatia, a Norwegian consultancy specializing in standardization and software accessibility.

    Strange, that the name of the consultancy is Hypatia. She, after all, was a mathematician-philosopher who ascribed to Plotinus's ideal... that empirical research is inherently flawed, and only logic and mathematics can achieve truth.

    I mean, there's a clear relationship here that I find very amusing. Microsoft's OOXML, while sure to be empirically more interoperable with most users due to the pervasity of Microsoft Office, is not logically more interoperable due to the nature of what MS has done to the "open" standard.

    Delicious allegory.

    [1] DIFI is the Norwegian Agency responsible for the decision.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:What's in a name by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft's OOXML, while sure to be empirically more interoperable with most users due to the pervasity of Microsoft Office,

      Doesn't interoperability mean ability to work with diverse systems?

      If users of MS Office share documents, that's not interoperability since they all use the same software family. You have to look at users who transfer documents back and forth between diverse software systems, eg MS Office, Open Office, Lotus Symphony, AppleWorks, etc.

      Interoperability is about making faithful conversions easy.

  2. Re:And? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because software costs money to make; but virtually no money to reproduce.

    The Norwegian government likely spends somewhere between some hundreds of thousands and some millions on software that must interpret their chosen document format(ie. actual copies of an office suite, server-side components that generate documents in response to web input, data archive widgetry that needs to be able to read inside the files it stores, etc.) Those who must exchange documents with the Norwegian government presumably spend some millions more.

    If that money is being spent on ODF-supporting software, the cost of ODF-supporting software goes down for everybody(or, more precisely, if they chose to build on OSS foundations, the cost for everybody stays the same, and the amount and quality available rises. If they end up going with something commercial, that commercial offering now has more customers across the same roughly fixed cost of development).

    It isn't so much that Norway is a vital source of Microsoft revenue, as they likely aren't. It's that their future software demand is going to subsidize improvements to Microsoft's competitors, rather than being high-margin purchases of licences to code that Microsoft has already developed.

  3. Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by lotho+brandybuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    OOXML.. I'm a regular user of Openoffice. I'm pretty interested in it succeeding, and was pretty aware of the OOXML v. ODF issues a year ago. And still, when I saw the title of this article, my first thought for 10 seconds was... oh shit.. they're ditching Openoffice in Scandanavia! Almost like someone deliberately named OOXML to create a little confusion, isn't it?

    1. Re:Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by IICV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm 90% certain that OOXML/Open Office confusion is the basis for the name. I mean seriously, Office Open XML? Why not Word Open XML (WOX)? Microsoft Open XML Interchange (MOXI)? There's a million more marketable names than OOXML, that wouldn't cause any confusion with Open Office.

      But then on the other hand, this is the company that brought us Bing.

    2. Re:Such a nicely chosen name for the standard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only that, but it combines "OO" and "XML", two of the most powerful buzzwords the computing industry has ever seen.

      I'm not trying to be funny, either. You wouldn't believe the number of managers I've had to deal with who see those terms, and go apeshit crazy about how good something is. Tell them your technology is "object-oriented", and they're sold. Then tell them it involves "XML", and they absolutely can't resist it.

      Mind you, these people tend to not know a thing about the technical aspects of software development. They don't know any programming languages, but are convinced that "object-oriented" is the ONLY way. They haven't got a clue what an XML document even looks like, but insist that it can do anything.

      The only thing managers these days slurp up more than "OO" and "XML" are "Web Services". If Microsoft had named it OOXMLWebServices instead of just OOXML, ODF would've been destroyed years ago.

  4. Re:And? by obarthelemy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When trying to debunk an obvious lie (such as "OOXML is a standard"), one reasonably visible dis-believer might be enough. All governments and organizations believing, or pretending to believe, that OOXML is a standard now know they're fools, and/or not fooling anyone.

    Plus hopefully the Norwegian government has produced a document explaining their position, that will be quotable for reference.

    --
    The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
  5. Remove one and unanimity is impossible by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why does this matter so much? Once one (now two) countries reject OOXML, it means it cannot become *the* international/European document standard for the public sector.

  6. Re:And? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are many parts of the OOXML 'standard' which refer to documents not available to the public, or which say something along the lines of 'do this the way office 97 does it'. A standard must contain all the information necessary to implement it, or else it is incomplete and thus not a standard.