ODF Threat to Microsoft in US Governments Grows 269
Tookis writes "Another setback for Microsoft has cropped up in the space of document formats in government organizations. The state of California has introduced a bill to make open document format (ODF) a mandatory requirement in the software used by state agencies. Similar legislation in Texas and Minnesota has added further to the pressure on Microsoft, which is pushing its own proprietary Office Open XML (OOXML) document format in the recently released Office 2007. The bill doesn't specify ODF by name, but instead requires the use of an open XML-based format."
So how many States is that now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Texas, California... anywhere else? I'm (happily) beginning to lose count!
History? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Define Open (Score:5, Interesting)
While I hope ISO doesn't ratify OOXLM, the cynical side of me doesn't have a whole lot of hope.
Re:So how many States is that now? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Define Open (Score:2, Interesting)
I read these stories about ODF and OOXML all the time, but I've never understood *why* these XML-based formats are so smiled upon. An open standard is great, but does XML really do the job we want here?
Documents created with office software usually need to do a number of things, things that when described in plain text and all the associated markup must result in incredibly bloated files. For example, how do you save an embedded image? An embedded audio clip? An embedded video? Base-64 encode them? Now we're talking bloat. Throw in vector and raster line art and we've defined the word "bloat". I realize the files will probably be zipped, but that won't make up for it.
I guess I just don't see why an open binary format, which can store all this information much more precisely and efficiently, wouldn't be better. XML is dandy, sure, but the specs for these formats are going to be so complicated that nobody will be able to open the file in a text editor and just read through it. The formatting instructions will be so verbose that they will completely overshadow any content. Writing a parser for these will be easily as complex as a parser designed to read a binary file representing the same document.
What's the big advantage of XML?
Re:Hooray for... (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously, California's government is supposed to let each of its agencies choose (or not choose) its own standard for documents, so that one part of the government can't communicate with another? Talk about mediocrity.
Re:X(HT)ML+CSS? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is ODF a threat to Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Define Open (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Common sense... (Score:3, Interesting)
Do we dare to dream of a world where you couldn't (and wouldn't have to) guess, with 99% accuracy, which office suite a company was using before you emailed them a document? The idea seems totally far fetched to me.
Re:Define Open (Score:3, Interesting)
When last I read of this law it included two provisions that seemed to indicate otherwise. One provision was a requirement that the standard be maintained by a third party with a process for altering and improving the standard that allowed input from multiple parties. The second provision was a requirement of several, independent implementations. Regardless of MS's shenanigans I don't see how they would meet either criteria. MS completely controls "Open"XML and third parties are not allowed to make changes or legally implement them. No one but MS has a complete implementation due to the nature of the so called standard.
Has the proposed California legislation changed greatly?
Re:Define Open (Score:4, Interesting)
As far as multiple implementations... Corel has already announced support for OOXML in Word Perfect. Novel has announced an OOXML filter for OpenOffice.org suite. Lovely how Novel's little deal is more and more of a stab in the back.