When Is a Standard Truly Open? - When It's Universal, Reflections on Massachusetts and Microsoft's XML

There are standards and there are standards. They are not all born equal.

What makes one standard open and not another? Massachusetts, when deciding to use the OpenDocument Format, as set forth in its Enterprise Information Technology Architecture (ETRM) document [PDF], set the bar here:

A recent statement by the Governor's office in Massachusetts, expressing optimistic hopes that Microsoft's Office Open XML document formats will meet their standard for an "open format" someday raises two questions: Is the Microsoft covenant not to sue, assuming it is someday offered for their new version of XML schemas, and their plans to submit their XML to standards bodies ECMA and ISO sufficient to meet the Massachusetts requirements for openness? If so, what are the implications for the Internet? If not, will Massachusetts decide their bar was set too high, in order to include Microsoft? If the bar was set too high, which part shall we lop off?

Shall we say the public has no right to open and free access to documents their tax money paid for?

No. Massachusetts has a Public Records Law [PDF] that mandates [PDF] that "all people have an absolute right of access to public information". The law doesn't distinguish between paper documents and digital documents. The disabled have a right of access, but so do the rest of us.

Are proprietary standards acceptable if nonproprietary, universally available standards are available?

Can a government dictate which operating system you have to use to access those documents? More pointedly, can it favor one proprietary vendor and compel citizens to spend money on a proprietary system, when they already have a perfectly functional operating system on their computers already?

We already saw in the Katrina disaster what happens when a government agency enables Windows-only access. I wrote about that in "When Open Standards Really Matter: the Katrina Factor", which begins like this, trying to explain why standards matter:

Accepting Microsoft's proprietary XML *with its proprietary extensions* as the language of the Internet would certainly alter the openness and universality of the Internet. Proprietary, by definition, means it isn't universal. Is that what we want? If Massachusetts accepts proprietary extensions, it will inevitably be excluding some of its citizens, I think.

Can any government, including Massachusetts, in the Internet age, justify telling its citizens, by the decisions it makes, that they must stop using their operating system of choice -- one used by millions all over the world -- and instead purchase a proprietary vendor's product instead if they wish to interact with their government? In any case, in an emergency, it may not be possible to quickly buy a Windows operating system. People use what they have. Sometimes it's all they have access to; sometimes it's all they can afford. On what basis would you argue a government should do that? More pointedly, on what *legal* basis would you argue they can?

Should Massachusetts wait for a future, yet-to-be-developed proprietary standard, not yet published, on terms that are not yet fully known, controlled by a single vendor, when you have one that is vendor-neutral and is already available? On what basis could the Commonwealth justify such favoritism to a single company? In the FAQ on the Commonwealth's ETRM, they state this:

What about legal encumbrances?

There are still questions about legal encumbrances on the MS XML and related licenses and EULAs. Is that going to be the part Massachusetts should wink at? They'd likely be sued if they tried, I think, and I doubt they will try, because it would be impossible to justify it in public, for one thing. That's the kind of thing that only works in back rooms, and nothing about this process will be hidden from the public's gaze.

On the issue of license clarity, obviously, if you can't understand the license, you won't dare to use the standard. I don't understand all the legalities of Microsoft's covenant not to sue and I don't know anyone who does. The danger is in establishing a standard that would, in effect, block Linux and GNU/Linux developers from participation. Do you imagine that could never happen? Consider your history.

Remember the SenderID flap? Who was to be left out in the EU Commissioner-MS deal? Do you really want to set up a world where Linux could never happen again, a world where the Linux we have is exiled to the backwaters of technology? Just being an ECMA standard doesn't mean it is open enough for *government* use. ECMA standards, by their own self-description, are for industry use:

The needs of government are not identical to the needs of industry. It's up to industry to meet the needs of government, not the other way around. The government is the customer, after all, so they get to state what they need in a product and to choose whatever meets their needs best.

Finally, shall we have two standards?

That seems to be what they are leaning toward. The Commonwealth has already stated that the disabled can continue to use Microsoft's products, if there are no better options they like, so that might be one area of carve-out. From what I've heard, however, that will be a solved problem for ODF by the time of the 2007 rollout. So again, the issue is going to be: should a government favor a proprietary solution, when there is a universally available solution that isn't proprietary and excludes no one? Tim Bray has made a sensible suggestion:

Let's think about what we should look for in a standard, what elements justify even calling it a standard. I'd like to redefine the issue, if I may. I think the sine qua non for a standard isn't whether it's open or proprietary. If, for example, Microsoft can open up its XML to match ODF's, that's fine with me. The real issue isn't openness alone. It's universality. Let me explain.

In trying to understand fully the standards issue in Massachusetts, I came across a helpful list on Bob Sutor's blog dating back to September. I hadn't read it, and perhaps you didn't either, so I'd like to provide here the danger signs that a standard isn't as open as it needs to be. I think it's pertinent, because Microsoft folks are telling the world that by applying to ECMA, the conversation about whether their XML is open enough should be over. It's only just beginning, actually, as they will discover.

Consequently, let's list the elements Sutor provides that indicate there is a problem with a standard and you can judge for yourself:

I see at least 6 items that would apply to Microsoft's XML. I'm sure I don't have to underline for you that the last is the deal-breaker, proprietary extensions. It's not a standard unless it's universally available and usable by everyone. The whole point of a standard is interoperability. Can everyone use it and have it work? Proprietary extensions, by definition, hamper interoperability.

The real question to me isn't just whether a standard is open. That's a continuum anyway, with various degrees of openness. The real question that matters is: is it universal? Can everyone freely use it? If not, should it be a standard?

XML Standards Impact the Internet, Not Just Massachusetts

When we're talking about XML, we're talking the Internet, not just about Massachusetts, because XML is the language of the future Internet. HTML was fine as the universal language for the Internet for its babyhood, but the future is XML, and so any discussion about standards for XML involve the Internet too. It's the next step, because it enables collaborative computing and universal data exchange.

No doubt Microsoft wants its proprietary version of XML to be adopted as a standard. But seriously, do you want the Internet's common language to belong, in essence, to one US company? And what a company! Ask yourself one question, and let your natural, first instinctive response answer: Do you trust Microsoft?

If you do, kindly tell me why, in light of their history. This is a company twice found guilty of antitrust violations, on two continents. What should that tell you? They had a version of the Internet too, remember? Happily no one was foolish enough to accept it. The theme of the Internet is universality, not proprietary walled gardens. Do you remember how Microsoft added proprietary extensions to HTML and degraded performance for competing browsers?

In the ETRM document, referenced above, the Commonwealth pointed out something very important:

Do you really think the Internet language should be determined by just one US proprietary company motivated by their own profit? The rest of the world will not go along with that, even if Massachusetts were to think so. And then how will they interchange data with countries and governments abroad? Massachusetts will be odd man out. Accepting Microsoft's version of XML with its proprietary extensions as the standard will thus result in serious issues ahead.

The Internet only works well if *everyone* uses the same language, and frankly, the whole world isn't going to accept Microsoft's proprietary XML as that common language. Can you imagine Europe agreeing to that? Or China? Or South America? FOSS developers? The next question is: Do we want two standards? Two Internets, in effect? That destroys the very purpose of the Internet, which is universality. Can there be justification for degrading the performance of something as important to us as utilities are for the sole benefit of a single proprietary vendor? I understand why Microsoft wants that, but why should you?

And there is a choice. ODF is here right now. There is no pie in the sky about it. It's not a year away. It's a universal standard, not vendor-controlled, which everyone can use, including Microsoft, without having to open up in any way themselves.

We're not just talking about Microsoft and Massachusetts, then. We're talking about the Internet, which doesn't belong to any company or any country. It's for everyone, and everyone uses it. Because it's universally available and usable, shouldn't the language of the Internet be universal too?

Index entries for this article
GuestArticles	Jones, Pamela

---

to post comments