Slashdot Mirror


UK Cabinet Office Adopts ODF As Exclusive Standard For Sharable Documents

Andy Updegrove writes: "The U.K. Cabinet Office accomplished today what the Commonwealth of Massachusetts set out (unsuccessfully) to achieve ten years ago: it formally required compliance with the Open Document Format (ODF) by software to be purchased in the future across all government bodies. Compliance with any of the existing versions of OOXML, the competing document format championed by Microsoft, is neither required nor relevant. The announcement was made today by The Minister for the Cabinet Office, Francis Maude. Henceforth, ODF compliance will be required for documents intended to be shared or subject to collaboration. PDF/A or HTML compliance will be required for viewable government documents. The decision follows a long process that invited, and received, very extensive public input – over 500 comments in all."

45 of 164 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Why ODF? by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vast majority of their users aren't especially smart when it comes to technology. They're essentially office workers - they don't give a stuff about the underlying format, they only care about being able to do their job.

    --

    Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  2. Re:Why ODF? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    We're talking about a Government.

    I'm pretty sure a government would have the resources to develop a renderer for an open document format, whether that be ODF, HTML or PDF/A.

    The specifications for those are all freely available and ISO standards.

  3. Re:Why ODF? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For certain limited definitions of "support".

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  4. Re:Why ODF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why ODF? Because its the best format. It was designed very carefully by a very large team of stakeholders (including engineers, lawyers, document companies, the Vatican Library, Medical professionals, architects, electrical engineers, etc). It was reviewed and revised by large groups to ensure it would fit their needs. Its unencumbered by patents. NONE of this happened with microsoft's OOXML (as it is, there is no software that can read that standard, including no software from microsoft). Microsoft cannot support their own standard. Oh, and ODF is human readable.

  5. When is the US going to get on board? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Government should only be allowed to use open standards. This proprietary vendor lock-in is a crime against society -- the very people the government is supposed to serve.

    1. Re:When is the US going to get on board? by Lotana · · Score: 2

      This proprietary vendor lock-in is a crime against society

      Could you please explain how propriety vendor lock in is a crime?

      At the end of the day, you need to get stuff done. If the propriety vendor got a monopoly on the easiest/fastest/most convenient ways of doing things, then it would be wasteful to spend time/money on ways to resist it. This is a case for Microsoft Office before the triumph of various other office packages that came along. When majority of your correspondents use Office, why would you spend the extra time making your documents in something else? You will waste their time as well trying to read it. Worse, you are creating barriers to the communication.

      Now you may have a point about information loss: Proprietary formats go obsolete and the old documents may be un-openable. However, I will argue that if you are ready to pay, there will always be someone that will take the job to reverse-engineer any format and write a converter to a more modern version.

    2. Re:When is the US going to get on board? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If you are ready to pay". There you go. I *already* paid: Any document which is produced by a government official was paid for *by me*, in the form of my tax money. I would expect to be able to read these documents without additional charge. If a *company* decides to go for vendor lock-in, that's their business - they should be able to do the "easiest/fastest/most convenient" calculation themselves. If it turns out they can't read their old design documents anymore, they have the right to pay a team of engineers a lot of money to reverse-engineer their old stuff. They will factor in these costs in their next product, and I have the choice to buy it, or shop elsewhere. However, this is not the case for the government. I cannot simply "shop elsewhere", so I expect the government not to cut corners and factor in what's easiest/cheapest/most convenient for their citizens.

  6. Re:Why ODF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    purely for ideological reasons.

    That's a great reason. People should get some principles.

  7. Re:Why ODF? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure a government would have the resources to develop a renderer for an open document format,

    Or they could just link to the web page: http://webodf.org/

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  8. Re:Why ODF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're clearly misinformed. ODF was the first document format ever to become an industry standard (ISO/IEC 26300).

    Microsoft then suddenly decided it also wanted to be kind of open and standardized and drafted ISO/IEC 29500

    There have been lots of discussions about ISO/IEC 29500 also on slashdot, because of the lack of necessity of another ISO document standard and how MS got it approved, the lack of a reference implementation (Office 2007 wasn't OOXML compliant), the reference to software patents within the standard and the way ISO 29500 got approved.

    The way MS acted when getting OOXML ISO approved is just one of the reasons why I always have "Fat Tony's" voice in my head when reading their public statements.

    So in a nutshell, OOXML was MS way to be a little like FOSS.

  9. Where is Apple? by ScooterComputer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When iWork first shipped, I asked folks in the know (at Apple) why they chose to design/engineer a completely new suite of file formats rather than adopting/utilizing ODF. I was told it was because ODF wasn't mature enough for their needs, and that it was felt that the ODF working group would be too slow for the iWork development roadmap.

    So far, ODF has chugged along, consistently; while iWork has seen a divergence in format compatibility (between Mac and iOS versions) and a complete, from-scratch rewrite (in the most recent version) that torpedoed backwards compatibility.

    Enough is enough. If Apple would have embraced ODF, they'd have rocketed the world's move away from Microsoft's Office document stranglehold. Instead, they have squandered both an opportunity to further stomp a odious competitor as well as an opportunity to position their desktop and mobile products as the best commercial competitor for the future where ODF clearly will reign supreme, all in one stupid "Not Invented Here" design decision.

    --
    Scott
    "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
    1. Re:Where is Apple? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      It's not too late for Apple to see the light and switch iWork to ODF. Except that Tim Cook is kind of dim witted.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re: Where is Apple? by gmhowell · · Score: 3, Funny

      While all that is true, Pages is much better for layout than MS word or LibreOffice's Word processor. Sometimes people like good tools

      Looking for tools? Slashdot is the right place.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:Where is Apple? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe you should start realizing Apple is worse than MS.

  10. Re:Why ODF? by moderators_are_w*nke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not really, if everyone used Word with ODF then everyone has the same level of compatibility. Or they can save some licensing cash and replace it Open/Libre Office.

    Unless they're an Excel junkie the average civil servant probably won't even notice. And the UK government shouldn't be allowed to use Excel

    --
    "XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, use more." - Anonymous Coward
  11. Re:Why ODF? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Informative

    I use ODF but no-one else does because MS Office doesn't properly support it, I'm crippling my ability to share documents around purely for ideological reasons.

    Microsoft OSs are down to 14% market share.

    It simply makes no sense to continue using their outdated lockin-inspired formats. The world needs to transition to document editing formats that're portable across whatever computing devices users want to buy.

    ODF was designed by the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) consortium to be that set of formats in 2005, and was only derailed by an intense and deeply corrupt effort by Microsoft. It's incredibly sad that we've had to wait for almost a decade for governments to finally start the transition.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  12. Re:Why ODF? by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The vast majority of their users aren't especially smart when it comes to technology. They're essentially office workers - they don't give a stuff about the underlying format, they only care about being able to do their job.

    So true. And therefore we should be thankful that some knowledgeable people who do care about such important matters are willing to step forward to do the right thing.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  13. Why so late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Good decition from UK. But one has to ask why not ten years ago. And why not in all countries. Instead MS has been allowed to nominate it's own closed format as open standard! And continue ruling and taxing the globe. And making competition impossible.
    And yes, ODF is not perfect. Nothing is. And ODF will continue to evolve like any format. The key is that it is open and allows (opens) competition.

  14. Re:Why ODF? by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And for an even more limited definition of "natively".

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  15. About time something is happening by Thraxy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really hope this catches on with businesses as well. I'm writing a lot of job applications at the moment, and being financially challenged I'm doing the work from LIbre Office. If I convert my application and CV to .doc or .docx the formatting will be all wrong when a potential employer reads it. Therefor I've been converting everything to PDF before sending. I'm starting to see job ads now that actually require people to deliver in PDF, most likely for the same exact reason, but I'm not entirely sure everyone can figure out how to convert a doc/docx/odf to PDF.

    There are a lot of people out there with very limited computer skills, so I think a well supported open document standard will be good for everyone in the long run.

    1. Re:About time something is happening by jaseuk · · Score: 2

      What do you mean?

      Word =

      File -> Save & Send -> Send as PDF

      It couldn't be much easier.

      Jason

    2. Re:About time something is happening by rastos1 · · Score: 2

      If I convert my application and CV to .doc or .docx the formatting will be all wrong ...

      Did you actually try that? On windows you can use free .doc viewer to verify how will word render your document. I believe that the mess will be comparable to mess created just by using a different version of MS office. I.e. not significant.

    3. Re:About time something is happening by bigfinger76 · · Score: 2

      You get yourself fired for screwing up, and it's somehow LibreOffice's fault?

    4. Re:About time something is happening by vux984 · · Score: 2

      See, the thing is, you're reading that I actually need .docx, which I haven't actually said anywhere

      No I caught that, but decided to making the point that docx (actually the harder HR requirement to meet) is still a very low practical barrier.

      But mate, cheers for the MS Office sales pitch.

      By providing 3 ways to avoid buying it altogether? and one final way that costs less than a premium coffee?? Yeah... Microsoft is paying me well to shill for them, LAMO. :p

  16. Re:Why ODF? by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Informative

    For what it's worth, ODF is XML, which nominally human readable. So is Microsoft's OOXML, a perversion that demonstrates clearly that "human readable" doesn't always mean what it says. The main difference between ODF and OOXML is that ODF actually is a credible attempt to be open and portable whereas OOXML is designed to achieve the opposite.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  17. Re:Why ODF? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    What does "human readable" mean for you?

    This is normally understood to mean lines of printable characters.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  18. Re:Why ODF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I do the same, though mostly as a small business. Very occasionally I find someone for whom the document doesn't work right. In those cases I simply say something like "oh; it must be a bug in MS Office; you might try LibreOffice; its available for free from https://www.libreoffice.org/" everybody I have done this for has downloaded that and been happy.

  19. Re:Why ODF? by Kalium70 · · Score: 2

    Many people work in situations where they must exchange documents with other people (inside or outside the company). When a document looks vastly different in LibreOffice compared to MS Office, that is a problem. At a previous job, I had to use Word on Windows -- Word on Mac was not enough -- when dealing with files containing MathType equations.

  20. Re:Why ODF? by GNious · · Score: 2

    Just tested...
    * OpenOffice loads in 4 seconds
    * 2nd load, 3 seconds (After closing the app)
    * 3rd time opening it (without closing the app completely), 1 second

    Am thinking if part of it is preloaded at boot-time, it would load a lot quicker; I'm told that this happens on Windows with MS Office for the same reason, which could explain why the work-laptop I was using earlier would load MS Office fairly quickly, yet take half a minute to boot :)

    (from memory, opening MS Office 2008 on OSX took several seconds too; don't have it installed currently)

  21. Re:Why ODF? by Barsteward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    you get the same problem with people using different versions of Office, we've had countless problems with users who have the older versions of Word etc not being able to read the newer formats of DOCs, not only that but different versions of Word can format the same document differently

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  22. Re:Why ODF? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

    OOXML wasn't designed as an exchange format at all ; every indication is that it's just an XML serialization of the internal data structures of Office. (The "Strict" version that nothing can write was produced after removing some of the more egregious kludges that have accumulated over time in Office).

    The only thing it was designed to achieve was to provide some reasonable doubt that it might be an "open format", at a time when open formats were starting to become all the rage.

    Because it gave that reasonable doubt, people were able to shy away from the difficult problem of how to migrate to a different office suite. Because Office allegedly "supports" ODF, that reasonable doubt is sadly still there.

  23. Re:Why ODF? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Informative

    The main reason you might want a human readable format is for collaboration ;

    So many of my customers have collaborative content editing requirements as follows

    * All changes to be auditable
    * Changes to be peer reviewed before going into the released content

    Which basically screams out to be put in a version control system ; the problem is that merging sucks for binary blob formats.

    You can close the gap either by creating better merge tools that understand your blobs, or moving the document structure to line-based text that merges well ; for a document of any complexity, you're going to need the improved merge tools, but line-based text makes sense for those who can read it without the GUI tools.

    As programmers we fill the role of that improved merge tool for the content that we manage ; we forget that for most people, parsing and grokking even something as simple as nicely prettified HTML is akin to reading Sanskrit blindfolded from stone tablets wearing gloves.

    I agree though, I want to move most of my technical authors to Markdown so that I can have an easy platform for converting their content to multiple formats for consumption.

  24. Re:Why ODF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because Office allegedly "supports" ODF, that reasonable doubt is sadly still there.

    Not so much any more.

    The real version of MS Office doesn't run on most of the computing platforms people want to use. Instead there's real competition, with dozens of variably capable Office tools available. On Android, you can get QuickOffice, Polaris Office, Kingsoft Office OfficeSuite and even the almost full version of Open Office. On iOS there's the Apple collection as well as Office HD and a some of the same Android apps. Even the web suites like Drive and Office Online work well enough.

    Even better, when a genuinely open document format is available, automated document builders like Python's POD (http://appyframework.org/pod.html) will be able to merge machine data (like engine readouts, noise levels and thousands of other data sources) with human-readable charts and text to automatically generate presentation documents.

    MS Office is an obsolete dinosaur already. Light it's pyre and send it on its way.

    The efficiency improvements alone will make the investment in change worthwhile. Bring it on!

  25. Re:Why ODF? by jareth-0205 · · Score: 2

    Why ODF? Because its the best format

    Disagree, at least from the points you make. The "best" format is the one that is the most useful to you, technical reasons be damned. If I use ODF but no-one else does because MS Office doesn't properly support it, I'm crippling my ability to share documents around purely for ideological reasons.

    Well since the entire cabinet is now using it, they all use it, so it will be appropriate for sharing.

  26. This a wheeze to get Office 2013/ 365 cheaper by Tomsk70 · · Score: 2

    We (the UK) are about to embark on another round of austerity, regardless of who wins the next election. I'd like to see what the public thinks about mass conversions of Word/ Excel/ PP docs - because it's not going to be quick or free, and once we reach the stage of 'well, what benefit will this give us right now?', there isn't one - in fact, it's the opposite.

    If the cabinet office wanted to do this with purely internal documents, they might have a chance - but if any docs come in or go out of the office, it's MS or bust. The conversion issue won't go away, and local Councils *certainly* don't have the money to implement this sort of thing (it took Munich ten years, and supposedly didn't cost much. Have you ever heard of a council project that took that long but didn't cost anything? Me neither). Then there's third-party apps - again, most of these aren't going to export in the format needed.

    TL, DR: Councils don't have the money, the Government doesn't really have the money, and the benefits don't amount to much outside of getting a warm cosy feeling because you're using an open format, meaning questions will then be asked as to why this was given priority/ money when the rest of the world is still using the app/ format you've abandoned.

    Souce; I've worked UK government IT for twenty years.

    1. Re:This a wheeze to get Office 2013/ 365 cheaper by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a UK tax payer, I welcome the move. Finally, someone in government is looking further ahead than just the next election.

      I would imagine that someone at GCHQ could easily convert the documents for a tiny fraction of the budget that they've got. In fact, they've probably already got conversions of everyone's private/secret documents already.

      Plenty of money for spying on UK subjects, but no money for protecting their interests in not being tied to a predatory US company.

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    2. Re:This a wheeze to get Office 2013/ 365 cheaper by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      Short term it may cost more, long term it should save a lot... As someone who fully expects to still be paying taxes in 10 years time, i welcome long term savings.

      As for interoperability, they are the government... You either want their business (eg suppliers), or you have no choice (eg taxpayers)... If they require that you submit documents in ODF then that's what you do, or they will find other suppliers who will.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    3. Re:This a wheeze to get Office 2013/ 365 cheaper by hawkinspeter · · Score: 2

      The obvious tangible benefits are that the documents will no longer be locked into some stupid proprietary format that can never be converted due to ridiculous macros and scripts (quite why a static document needs to have macros and scripts is beyond me).

      --
      You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
    4. Re:This a wheeze to get Office 2013/ 365 cheaper by Shimbo · · Score: 2

      Your argument about not wanting to change something due to the length of time that it's been unchanged is laughable.

      As well as being entirely untrue, of course, given the number of incompatible format changes Office has gone through over over the years.

  27. Re:Compliance With Standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The constrained resource is "desire"

  28. Re:Why ODF? by hawkinspeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That doesn't make much sense as this particular change would be welcomed by people who think that principles are important. In fact, a lot of changes are brought about by people who stick to their principles (e.g. abolition of slavery).

    --
    You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
  29. Re:Why ODF? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ODF is more like a zip file of XML files

    You can have a single-document xml file, but its quite rare.

    Not that it really matters so much, the only problem I had was finding a library to write a .ods file (basically wanted to write a csv, but in a format that Excel would actually fucking render correctly, the fucker). Writing out .xls files was just not available unless I had Office installed and called some COM wrapper to some craziness.

  30. Re:Why ODF? by petermgreen · · Score: 2

    Which is WHY it's important that big guys are doing this.

    When you are the little guy there is a lot of pressure on you to conform to the standards set by those you work with (and that may mean not just using MS office but using a specific version of MS office), when you are the big guy you SET the standards and require other people to conform to them.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  31. Re:Why ODF? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 3

    bullshit. I get a .xls from my accountant to enter my details, and its full of protected cells and functions. I use LibreOffice, and so far my accountant hasn't even noticed anything untoward with the returned .xls file I send him.

    Considering Word can't even open some Word documents created with older versions of Word, I think this is pretty damn good.

  32. Re:Why ODF? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2

    Perhaps in your little corner of the world MS documents still reign supreme. But can your MS Word open a .doc written by your Mom in 1995, allow you to add commentary, and then save it back into the archive in its original format?

    Short answer: Microsoft's breakage of its own standards to leverage its marketing position has you screwed. You might not know that yet, but you are definitely screwed.

    Hop off that dinosaur, its in its death throes (beware that thrashing tail). Get on some critter that has some life left in it. Just about any of the newer office suites (other than Microsoft) will support ODF and assure that you will always have access to your archives.

    --
    Will