RSSMassachusetts: MS Open XML Now in Equal Standing with ODF
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 1, 2007, 9:36 PM
Late today, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts announced that it has formally ratified the 4.0 version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Policy. As a result, Microsoft's Office Open XML format -- recently ratified by the ECMA standards body -- is now considered in equal stature with OASIS' OpenDocument Format, for use by state employees.
The ratification officially codifies Massachusetts' approval last month of the new default format of Microsoft Office 2007, and opens a new chapter in the strange controversy over something as seemingly uninteresting on the surface as storage formats. A public institution's choice of storage formats dictates the applications its workers use to utilize those formats. Massachusetts has not rejected ODF, nor is it considering ODF in some sort of alternate or subservient stance with respect to OOXML.
During the nearly month-long review period, the state's Information Technology division received some 460 comments. Among those comments were concerns raised over whether, by accepting OOXML, the State would be mandating its employees to use Office 2007.
But the final draft of the State's ETRM 4.0 document tries to allay those concerns by listing multiple applications that either support OOXML now or whose manufacturers pledge to support it later.
"The Open XML format may be used for office documents such as text documents (.docx), spreadsheets (.xlsx), and presentations (.pptx)," the final draft reads. "The Open XML format is currently supported by a variety of office applications including Microsoft Office 2007, OpenOffice Novell Edition, and NeoOffice 2.1. Corel has announced Open XML support for WordPerfect 2007. In addition, the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack enables older versions of Microsoft Office such as Office 2003, XP and 2000, to translate documents to and from Open XML Format for text, presentation and spreadsheet documents."
The document goes on to say that state employees' systems are expected to migrate away from the use of any application that supports only binary storage formats, in favor of one that is based in XML.
10:30 pm ET August 1, 2007 - Comments on Massachusetts’ decision came fast and furious Wednesday evening. Writing on behalf of the State’s Information Technology Division’s (ITD), its Interim Revenue Commissioner, Henry Dormitzer, and acting CIO Bethann Popoli, stated the following: “The Commonwealth continues on its path toward open, XML-based document formats without reflecting a vendor or commercial bias in ETRM v4.0.
Many of the comments we received identify concerns regarding the Open XML specification. We believe that these concerns, as with those regarding ODF, are appropriately handled through the standards setting process, and we expect both standards to evolve and improve. Moreover, we believe that the impact of any legitimate concerns raised about either standard is outweighed substantially by the benefits of moving toward open, XML-based document format standards. Therefore, we will be moving forward to include both ODF and Open XML as acceptable document formats.”
An outspoken critic of Massachusetts’ change in stance, Linux Foundation board member and open-source attorney Andrew Updegrove, cited the above paragraph in his statement this evening, compared it to the State’s prior position of including only open standards as he defines them, and added the following:
“Tellingly, the statement quoted above retreats from that position [of including only open standards], taking cover instead behind the need to move ‘to XML-based document formats’ while abandoning the moral high ground of insisting on international adoption, as well as convincing proof that the Microsoft formats will result in the type of future accessibility that led to the ITD's original position. Rather than waiting - as little as one month - to see whether Ecma 376 would be granted that status by ISO/IEC JTC1, the current administration has opted instead to punt - a substantial and regrettable retreat from the stance that brought OOXML this far along the open standards road.
“Massachusetts - or, more properly, a small number of courageous public servants - did something important two years ago when they took a stand for open formats,” Updegrove continued. “It is regrettable that their successors have seen fit to abandon that principled stance, even to the expedient extent of waiting a short while longer to see whether Microsoft's OOXML formats will be found to be sufficient or lacking under the microscope of the global standards adoption process.”
Meanwhile, a critic of Massachusetts’ stance from a completely different position – Association for Competitive Technology President Jonathan Zuck – reiterated his stance that the State should not have adopted a document that restricts users to standardized formats only, but sounded a note of hope that its final draft at least acknowledged what he believes to be the problems inherent in such restrictions.
“By committing only to broad open standards approved by international committees, the needs of smaller user groups can be overlooked,” Zuck wrote late today. “As the ETRM acknowledges, there are currently no office applications with native ODF support that provide accessibility for persons who use assistive technology devices. It is obvious from the changes that the new administration realizes the problems inherent in this kind of policy. We can only hope that the policy continues to evolve in the coming months toward a truly goals-based policy that gives the Commonwealth's CIOs the flexibility they need.”
Writing for the Initiative for Software Choice, a project of the Computing Technology Industry Association (of which Microsoft is a member), Executive Director Melanie Wyne writes, “We have long stated that where interoperability is fostered through open standards that can be implemented in multiple formats and technologies, all IT vendors have incentives to develop products and services that encourage innovation, enhance competition and expand consumer choice. The new ETRM moves confidently in this direction.”
Next: What the general public thinks...
For a long decade we have suffered because our document formats were
impenetrable and incompatible. We have real problems that need to be solved and all the talk is about standards, brands, licenses, and other things that are not people using documents.
We don't care about standards, use one or don't, what we want are results and this is what we expect.
We don't want backward compatibility or vendor incompatibility to be a problem anymore. Once we take the plunge and go to XML document formats I never want to see a message about what version of what software created a document again. I never want to hear about documents that don't look right on the other side. This is not astrology, it's text layout, and we can do it with accurate details.
We also want choice, not choice of document format, nobody wants to care about the file format. what we want is choice of software. Use a simple program, a power packed professional version, one in your native language, one that runs on your favorite operating system, or one that is licensed under GPL3. Every one of these should all read and write the same XML and never have a compatibility or an interoperability problem.
So I don't want to hear any more about committees with numbers in their names. I don't want to read file format specifications. I want my problems solved, resolved, archived, and forgotten.
So if your solution means never having a file format incompatibly problem again then lets do it, otherwise go back and try again.
Score: 0
|It's not open until FOSS can open it without errors.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Right, because the FOSS community has no interest whatsoever in complaining about MS format incompatibility...
/sarcasm
Score: 0
|Have to love the corrupt government at work. How people still vote for Republicans and Democrats is beyond me.
Score: 0
|Wow, great summary report, Scott. Just hope the taxpayers of Massachusetts enjoy raising their taxes every other year to pay the Microsoft Tax just to read and access their own public data using a proprietary format. Thanks to one appointed person — not the residents of Massachusetts — they didn't get to vote on this tax increase. Wonder if Microsoft will give them the "China discount" of Vista/Office 2007 bundle for a mere $3?
[Cue toolie boy.]
Score: 0
|Uh...you DO realize that it's OXML is an OPEN standard right? Or you just see MS and immediately decide it's time to try to bash no matter how uninformed you are?
Let me help you out because i know this article must be too hard for you to read in it's entirety:
"The Open XML format is currently supported by a variety of office applications including Microsoft Office 2007, OpenOffice Novell Edition, and NeoOffice 2.1. Corel has announced Open XML support for WordPerfect 2007. In addition, the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack enables older versions of Microsoft Office such as Office 2003, XP and 2000, to translate documents to and from Open XML Format for text, presentation and spreadsheet documents."
Score: 0
|It is amazing how many people have no idea what an open standard is. OOXML is _not_ an open standard. It is a format created and controlled by M$.
.doc is supported by other programs than M$ Office, so by your definition it is an "open standard" format.
The word "supported" does not mean 100% support. just as in the case of M$ OOXML. Unless you are M$ and running on M$ Windows, you _cannot_ make a 100% OOXML compliant Office application. Their specification is very clear on this.
Score: 0
|It's not an open standard? I guess someone should tell ECMA that...
Score: 0
|According to the above esteemed MS tolls, ECMA is a joke. (Of course it is, their views don't conform to the anti-MS bias)
Score: 0
|wow I wish I was so cool that Microsoft to me was M$
Get out of the 90's hacker l33t speak already.
Score: 0
|Again, you lack understanding of the issue. You are getting caught up on the the fact that just because something is a standard, that does not mean it is "open".
OOXML is not an _open_ standard.
ECMA is a joke of a standards body. It has a history of rubber stamping anything vendors throw in front of it. Please do some research before you post.
Score: 0
|your delusions continue to amaze. If you have nothing to offer, why post at all?
Score: 0
|$omebody i$ pi$$y!
Score: 0
|I'm sorry. Did you miss the point?
Let me explain:
From PitdingoECMA is a joke of a standards body.
Now reread my post.
Get it?
Thanks for playing.
Score: 0
|Somebody is mentally challenged.
Score: 0
|and your constructive comments are what exactly? You do nothing to address the point of the discussion. you do nothing to argue my points. You have nothing except the usual troll post.
Perhaps _you_ need to re-read the posts.
Score: 0
|"pi$$y" is that Bill Gates when he's mad, or that Mexican telco guy? No wait, that would be in pe$o$.
Score: 0
|My point was that either or the both of you, when faced with things like actual facts will almost always attempt to discredit (without using facts, mind you, we know you guys don't like those) the source.
...and you did just that.
The discussion revolves around the ECMA certified OOXML standard.
Prophesying your response to that statement was actually quite relevant, made even more so by your almost instant response exactly as I had predicted.
It was a simple exercise intended to expose you're utter lack of credibility regarding this issue. Thanks for your help. :)
Score: 0
|It's pointless PC...he still thinks MS is still a monopoly.
This is the same guy that bashed MS for actually providing an option of downloading HD movies...it confused him, because HD movies are available on HD DVD...so he wasn't sure why MS is trying to make matters more confusing and giving consumers the option of downloading them...how do you reason with a guy like that?
Score: 0
|Heh..
I suppose. Perhaps I should try something a bit more on his level?
"Hay, pitdingo, Im in ur forum, ninjaing ur st00pid"?
*laughs*
Ya know, that might actually work...
Score: 0
|lol
Score: 0
|gotta luv people that have no clue. Here let me spell it out for you PC_Troll
http://www.understanding...12/has_ecma_become.html
http://www.consortiuminf...story=20061221065155844
http://www.robweir.com/b...anger-than-fiction.html
I could list many more but i will leave it up to you PC_Troll, since you clearly are far wiser than anyone else on these boards.
Your total lack of credibility on these forums has been noted once again.
Score: 0
|Zaine, your comments are really starting to annoy me. Compared to what you post over at donationcoder.com, your remarks in the latest days have been nothing but anti-microsoft without any sort of justification.
Score: 0
|Link 1:
Author is a member of W3C and OASIS. Both of which have had issues with Microsoft in the past. No facts are stated, and, as a matter of interest, he makes claims several times he does not have any way of backing up.
subsequent versions of Office will end up using yet another version of the Office Open format
A significant proportion of the incompatibilities that occur on the web come about because Microsoft's "JScript"
Nothing but BS.
Link 2:
He derides ECMA solely because it's press releases in the last 6 months have focused heavily on Microsoft and OOXML. Hard to fault since it's probably the most pivotal, controversial, and talked about standard they've ever looked at.
link 3:
Takes *one* slide, out of context, and makes wild presumptions with no real data or information whatsoever.
Their issues with it?
Standards are made available "on time"?
Notice on time is in quotes? That's not my addition, it's in the slide. Synonymous with "as soon as possible", but not with "without regard for detail and honesty".
Minimize the "risk" of changes?
Damn straight. The last thing any standard needs, is to be changed after it's made a standard. Oh...did you think they meant "we'll accept it as is so you don't have to worry about anything."? I didn't see that line.
All in all, that's a pretty poor list of links there, pal. All opinions fueld by wild assumptions and no factual data. C'mon, you can do better than some lame-ass blog postings, can't you?
Your total lack of credibility on these forums has been noted once again.
Boy, you really *are* dreaming, aren't you?
Score: 0
|You have no idea what went on here to come to this decision.
The cost of implementing ODF would far surprass OOXML implementation given that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts already has an investment in hardware, software, and training for present-day MS Office formats. Everyone would need retraining of some kind, every document ever created would have to be converted to another format for archival purposes, external entities to the Commonwealth that do not use ODF would require hte Commonwealth to STILL keep around MS versions of every document. Its a big friggen mess and no not one person decided this. Get real if you really think that.
Even dumping MSFT wouldn't make things free. You still have to pay someone somewhere for support and software license fees.
Comments like yours make it blatently obvious you have never worked in an enterprise class environment where many factors must be considered due to the rippling effect one seemingly simple idea can have.
Score: 0
|"Your total lack of credibility on these forums has been noted once again. "
I hate to break it to you...but I'm pretty sure Dave is the only person on these forums that has less credibility then you....you really are the last person that should be making a statement like that.
Don't let this get to your head PC...it's not that you're very credible...you're far above his level though. :)
Score: 0
|make up whatever lies and distortions you want. You know and i know, you are wrong. Be a man and admit it.
But you can't.
ECMA is a joke. Anyone that knows anything about standards bodies knows it.
Score: 0
|"Judge Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ted_States_v._Microsoft
Score: 0
|uh...Pit...I know this is going to be difficult for you...I'm so sorry to be the one to inform you, that, it is...the year 2007 now.
You may need to seek professional help to see if you can remember what happened with your life in the past 8 years...but, please do so ASAP. The longer you wait, the harder it will be to bring back those memories.
Also...just for the fun of it...from your link:
"The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Judge Jackson's rulings against Microsoft on browser tying and attempted monopolization on grounds that he gave embargoed interviews to the news media while he was still hearing the case, in violation of the Code of Conduct for US Judges [11]. Judge Jackson did not attend the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals hearing, in which Jackson was repeatedly and vehemently denounced by the appeals court judges, who accused Jackson of unethical conduct and determined he should have recused himself from the case"
Score: 0
|No, ECMA formally prepares a standard. And ECMA standards don't have to be open standards. It is not a "joke" but a "service".
Score: 0
|ISC and Zuck's ACT are a joke.
Score: 0
|ECMA is not a joke. Anyone who knows anything about standard bodies know it.
Are you member of a country's ISO committee?
Score: 0
|Wow, proprietery format? What is this proprietery format you mentioned? Definitely not OOXML, as it is already an ECMA standard and in the process of becoming an ISO standard.
If you can definitely prove that OOXML does not follow ECMA standardization procedures and standards, I can hook you up with connections that will eventually revoke OOXML's ECMA certification. But just like many trolls out there who only speaks loudly without any action, I bet you will not be able to prove this.
Score: 0
|Do you work for M$? No IT person worth anything would ever want to be locked into a single vendors proprietary format. There is no competition.
A public agency should release electronic communication in a open standards based format. A single vendors tools should not be required.
M$ OOXML is a closed format. M$ owns it. M$ drives it. It is incompletely defined, and has many problems.
You have to start somewhere. You do not just convert all docs over. You start out by mandating new documentation use the open formats.
Initially it is going to be painful. Over time, huge financial savings will be realized, along with a healthier software eco-system as you will have competition.
Please stop with the "free" non-sense. Nothing is free. but an ODF standard would make things a whole lot closer to "free" than the status quo M$ proprietary garbage.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Ah, insults and baseless accusations; The tried and true kneejerk response of those who can no longer argue the facts.
Score: 0
|it's not that you're very credible...you're far above his level though. :)
Uhh....
Thanks? :p
Score: 0
|Nope, not a Mirosoft employee (Wow, using M$ is so original). You ignored the part about external entities to the Commonwealth that do not use anything that supports these formats. If contractors, private companies, and the constituants of the Commonwealth itself cannot support these formats, why should the Commonwealth itself do so?
If you think huge financial savings will be realized, then you have some serious missing peices of the puzzel. Why don't you go and read the documents about what it would have cost MA to convert?
Another thing, the MA ITD department is not the authority in MA responsible for archival of state documents. This responsibility lies with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's office. It is their decision how things should be created and stored. MA ITD making a decision to change the standard document format would actually be outside of their authority and most likely prompt a lawsuit by the Attorney General's office. This should have never started with them in the first place.
Score: 0
|