Mass Officially Approves OoXML. PJ, Please Step Away From the Ledge.

Yesterday, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts released the final version of its Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) and it <gasp> included a thumbs up for the Microsoft/Apple/British Library-sponsored Ecma-376 Office Open XML standard.

Don't worry PJ, Bob, et al.  It's not a sign of the apocalypse, the Rapture, or the Quickening.  Please act accordingly.  It's just a sign that Massachusetts is realizing that the technology mandates you were proposing are simply a dumb idea.  ODF is a decent technology, but it ISN'T one-size fits all solution to all the Commonwealth's problems.

Yet, we at ACT agree at least partially with the ODF jihadists...this policy still isn't great.  At its core, the policy is still based on a government technology mandate.  As we said in our press release:

The Massachusetts open format policy has evolved into a much more effective solution to the challenges of interoperability, competition, and long-term document access, but it can still be improved.  The one real limitation to the policy is the rigid definition of ‘open standard’ used in the ETRM.   The policy limits the Commonwealth’s choices to ’open standards,’ when the goals could be achieved with merely ‘open formats.’  While small firms are often willing to open up their formats and technologies, they often do not have the political clout to move their formats through an open standards body the way IBM, Sun, and Microsoft have done.  In fact, even open source formats like Ogg Vorbis would be locked out.  Yet, these small firm technologies may better meet the needs of the Commonwealth and individual agencies.

I feel like this point is almost always lost in the debate.  The vast majority of the push for ODF is simply anti-Microsoft, not a real effort at trying to help governments deal with the challenges of long-term document access, interoperability, and competition.   If it was, then the policy would be focused on these goals and not trampling on technologies that could help governments better reach them.   

Comments

[James M. Susanka]

here are the real facts about your wonderful proprietary xml format

it is mathematically incorrect don't you know

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007080501281312

[Mark Blafkin]

James,

OoXML is not perfect, and neither is ODF. Like all technology, they will continue to evolve and get better. You're not going to find it on Groklaw, but you those FLOSSers that are intellectually honest, like Miguel de Icaza, know that much of the anti-OoXML is nothing more than anti-MS FUD.

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html

Anyhow, try to remember that the decision Mass. only gives them the option to use OoXML. IF government CIOs prefer ODF, they can use it.

[W^L+]

The pro-ODF crowd is pro-USER, pro-BUYER, and pro-SMALL BUSINESS. That is why we support vendor-neutral formats. On the other hand, the pro-OOXML crowd is almost all pro-Microsoft, even when that means being anti (user, buyer, small business). See http://blogs.webconnectconsulting.com/pivot/entry.php?id=19

Watching the dirty tricks that the world's leading software house has pulled seeking the ISO-ification of OOXML, you have to wonder just why they seem to feel that their corporate survival is at stake, when they currently have over 90% of the market in their hands. Is this intended to be the death blow that kills off all competitors, ensuring continued dominance for years to come?

Why is a group that is supposedly helping small businesses throwing smaller businesses under the bus for the benefit of one large company? I wonder who pays the bills in ACTland? I've heard it said that when someone's behavior doesn't make sense, follow the money and it soon will.