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."

15 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 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.

  3. 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 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.

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

    purely for ideological reasons.

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

  5. 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."
  6. 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.

  7. 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."
  8. 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
  9. 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."
  10. 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.
  11. 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.

  12. 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.
  13. 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)
  14. 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.