| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)Posted Sep 16, 2005 13:57 UTC (Fri) by kfox (guest, #4767)Parent article: Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)
Microsoft makes a good point about the robustness of a standard though.
De jure standards work best when they evolve from robust de facto standards. The IETF embraced this idea from the beginning and I think it's the main reason why I like IETF standards and hate ISO standards.
Massachusetts should come up with a plan to just adopt today's de facto standard. Governments can appropriate property for the public good. I'm not sure how they'd do it, or what it would cost, but I'd like to see them try. The old MS Office formats were abysmal, but their new XML-based formats might be ok. OpenOffice is going to have to support the formats anyway. I'd love to see the government embrace, extend and extinguish Microsoft's file format monopoly.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 16, 2005 15:15 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] The standard is basically OOo 1.1's document format with minor chnages. It is being implemented in OOo 2 as well as in some other word processors now.
Had MS provided a good license for their format, their format might have been considered. But their license doesn't allow you much. So it could not be used as an open standard.
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 17, 2005 5:26 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] By what law could they actually enforce a license on a file format? Also, if they could do so, why haven't they already sued the developers of OpenOffice and other projects with import filters for their file formats? I doubt that Microsoft's claims of having "intellectual property rights" over their file formats are no more true than, for example, SCO's claim to the ELF executable format.
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 17, 2005 21:37 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] s/no more/any more/
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 16, 2005 15:21 UTC (Fri) by AJWM (subscriber, #15888) [Link] Ah, but the OASIS OpenDocument standard DID evolve from a de facto standard -- the OpenOffice.org document format. The OOo format has been around for a while, with millions of people using it, so it has demonstrated robustness.
The formats aren't quite identical, older versions of OOo don't handle the new OD format, but at least there has been a lot of practical experience with what went into the standard in the first place -- more than can be said for some standards. And there are already a number of other office apps implementing it, which is key to a robust standard. Implementation shakes out the inconsistencies and ambiguities.
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 16, 2005 17:38 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Yes, but here IETF rules will declare OpenDocument format right choice. Hands down. It's quite simple, really. MS's new format: OpenDocument: Conclusion ? Easy: we have working interoperable code on one side and a lot of hot air on the other side (noone can be sure if MS's XML will be interoperable: you need two independent implementations to claim that - it's IETF rule!). Let's concentrate on working code and leave hot air behind till at least two independent interoperable implementations will exist, shell we ? Not all ISO-developed standards are bad (think C++, for example). Some are better, some are worse, but OpenDocument is clearly developed in IETF-like fashing...
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 19, 2005 6:00 UTC (Mon) by Mithrandir (subscriber, #3031) [Link] Not all ISO-developed standards are bad (think C++, for example)I'm not exactly sure why I found this so funny...
|
|||||||||||