Massachusetts Finalizes OpenDocument Standard Plan 210
wellington map writes "The state of Massachusetts has finalized a proposed move to an open, nonproprietary format for office documents, a plan that involves phasing out versions of Microsoft's Office productivity suite deployed in the state's executive branch agencies. Massachusetts expects its agencies to develop phased migration plans away from productivity suites that do not support OpenDocument, with a target implementation date of January 1, 2007. Looks like it's finally cemented after some heated discussions."
lately... (Score:5, Funny)
Good on 'Em, mate! :-) (Score:3, Interesting)
I am happy to hear the Chew'setts have the brass tacks to pull something like this off and I can't wait to see Microsoft shoot themselves in the foot on this one.
Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-) (Score:3, Funny)
Here's to the Boston Office party!
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Hate to be a downer, but I am sure if you a
Re:I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
i'm willing to bet CIO's will be looking to limit their personal risk when this directive becomes state law.
Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-) (Score:5, Insightful)
Of all the company representatives present during that meeting, I did not hear one objecting to the goals MA has in mind, except one. And some of those companies present are not from the backwoods.
If anyone is phasing anyone one out, it is Microsoft doing it to themselves.
Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Good on 'Em, mate! :-) (Score:2)
So why does MA want an open standard format?????
Re:lately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:lately... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also have seen the quality of tech support in several local gov't situation. Usually below industry pay rate (but nice benefits). And the hiring process favors women, minorities, those with prior civil service experience and military background. Some of the dumbest folks you ever want to meet are working for your local gov't. I had one "sys admin" forward me an e-mail about a dangerous file on my system that I had to delete... turned out to be a critical windows file.
So point is, this decision wasn't made based upon tech savvy. It was made based upon cost.
Re:lately... (Score:3, Informative)
You can listen to a recent meeting of the Mass Technology Leadership Council here:
http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wik i
It's long, but they say time and time again they're only concerned with the document format and it's "openness." And they do a *great* job
Re:lately... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:lately... (Score:5, Insightful)
They were very smart IMHO. It's not trend-following. In fact they sort of appologize for not getting to this earlier (talking about how government tends to actually trail behind the private sector). Their reasoning is that they never want to need to worry in the future about being able to read old documents (MS can't make this guarantee - remember that state documents live for hundreds of years!). This was the big sticking point mostly. They also don't like one vendor controlling what they can do with their documents and didn't want to require the public to purchase expensive software to view these documents.
This is one of the few times I'm glad to be from Massachusetts. They had very well thought-out reasons behind this. The Microsoft representative couldn't even argue with them (though it sounds like he'd just gotten off a flight so he was probably pretty tired).
They stated that they don't require Open Office, just software that implements the OASIS spec. Microsoft is free to do so and then they will consider Office. It was the most complete spec that they found that offers all of the above points. I highly suggest listening to that recording. It's long, but not terribly boring (mostly techies in the room - few lawyers).
Re:lately... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a database in Access 1.0 format. It is entirely unreadable/convertable by current versions of Access, and there is no free software available that will convert it. Essentially the data is lost forever, unless I seach for a garage sale copy of Access 1.0 or 2.0 - and there is no guarantee that such software would work on Windows XP anyway.
Now as it happens I don't need that data. But local governments should not be put in a position where their achi
Re:lately... (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the problem you describe is primarily due to the age of the data file and not some much with the data file being in a proprietary format. As the open file format evolves it's likely you will encounter the same issue.
No, not the same issue. If Access 1.0 had used an open format, even if I couldn't acquire a copy of a sufficiently old version of Access, I could always read the specification and implement a translator that converts to a newer format which modern software can read. Now, whether or not that's worth the effort depends on the circumstances, but it would be orders of magnitude easier than reverse-engineering the format, or finding some way to acquire the ancient software and the infrastructure needed to run it.
And, odds are, given an open format someone else will have already written the translator and published it as open source. Especially if the format in question was widely used.
Re:lately... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Microsoft will publish the new Office Open XML Format specifications with the Open and Royalty-free license that we first made available for the Office 2003 XML file formats.
But Microsoft's license is not available to Free Software projects. Such a license fulfills most of the Massachussets goals, but unnecessarily limits what programs can implement support for the formats.
You mean something along the lines of what a myraid of programs, such as Open Office, already do for MS Office file formats?
So
Re:lately... (Score:3, Insightful)
It meets their goals. Whether it's available to free software projects is irrelavent.
It meets *most* of their goals. One of their goals is that the format must be implementable by anyone. Free Software projects cannot use Microsoft's format, ergo it does not meet all of the requirements.
A non-issue as the format is being published by Microsoft.
Perhaps. Their Office 2003 XML formats include significant features that, while documented, are inextricably tied to other Windows components which are not
Re:lately... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not so. If the Access 1.0 format were open, BasilBrush could have written a converter himself, regardless of how old the format was. But the format is closed, so he is f*cked.
Massachusetts does not want to be stranded like Basil. Will Microsoft still be
Re:lately... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:lately... (Score:2)
Re:lately... (Score:2)
As one gentleman in the meeting put it. The law books from the early 1800s in the Harvard library are still readable. So should any documents stored elecronically in 200 yea
Re:lately... (Score:2)
Re:lately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:lately... (Score:2)
Yes, and why is that? It is because paper books are a common, reliable (albeit comparatively low density) non-volatile data storage medium which has changed very little in all that time. And even though the medium has remained stable, the truth is that the nature of the languages used (i.e., the file format) most certainly has changed, often to the point where the inform
Re:lately... (Score:2)
Fact is, file formats can always be reverse engineered
Ahhh, but will it be *legal* to do so? That is part of the dilemma being faced lately, and part of the reason Massachusetts doesn't want file formats encumbered by patents and such.
Re:lately... (Score:2)
I call Bullshit. Supporting different versions of MS products is indeed more technically challenging and daunting - worse, in many cases it's near impossible - you actually refer to the stupid advice to delete a patch! Considering non-MS agencies know and care more about MS formats and support them in their packages, this is both a cost-effective AND wise decision.
Re:lately... (Score:2)
Re:lately... (Score:2)
It was only after a rather lot of pressure from the public (mostly geeks, I assume) that they released the updated version. Public outcry made them realize that encumbered file formats were not a good idea for government files.
So, whilst your reasoning is sound, it is factually incorrect.
Re:lately... (Score:2)
And yes, there are qualified black and female IT professionals. But they are a small percentage of the entire IT workforce. When you limit youself to a small percentage of the workforce, you will get a smaller percentage of qualified personnel.
The fact is the civil service is sexist and racist. If I reversed the scoring procedures (add points for mal
Since you asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Since you asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem I have with this logic is this: Not all white folks are necessarilly the beneficiaries of past racist policies. I live in a semi-ghetto area. About half white, half-black. Very high unemployment. I won't go into my reasons for living here.
About half of the folks are unemployed. Most come from families where education is not stressed and drug use is high. Affirmative action might help a young black person who wants
Re:Since you asked... (Score:3, Insightful)
It irks me every time I fill out some kind of government form and have to skip over the "visible minority" checkbox..
For the record, I happen to know it also equally irks my girlfriend who happens to be a
Re:Since you asked... (Score:2)
This might be something that came into use through some kind of PC push but it's very puzzling...
Re:Since you asked... (Score:2)
Re:Since you asked... (Score:2)
Re:lately... (Score:3, Interesting)
MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, in the end, the customer is always right. So Microsoft will come around if OpenDocument gets any kind of real traction.
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:3, Funny)
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:2)
Actually, the plan does not necessarily involve phasing out anything. As the parent post suggests, Microsoft can continue to be a contender by modifying Office to support open document formats.
Once large companies and governments realize that they can get along just fine without Microsoft products, it will be even harder to get them back on the crack, so to speak.
Th
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:2)
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:2)
Re:MS Will Come Around Eventually (Score:2)
Sad (Score:2, Funny)
In Related News... (Score:5, Interesting)
great reply! (Score:2)
Great way to fight the FUD!!!
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
"I am sure that Mr. Yates will be greatly reassured and uplifted by your letter. Hopefully, this will assuage the horrible anxiety Microsoft has suffered and continues to suffer, in the wake of this OpenDocument announcement, for it's good friend... the honorable State of Massachusetts."
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
I whish the format would be more ea
Re:In Related News... (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
The slashdot articles are also fairly free of any
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a recording of the Mass Technology Leadership Council discussing their reasons here: http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wik
Basically they're very afraid of proprietary document formats (and rightly so). Especially when they consider archival purposes. 20 years from now do you want to find a copy of Word '98 to be able to read old state documents? Right now I can go to the basement of Harvard and read law books from the 1800's!
They're also concerned about requiring the public to purchase expensive software from a single vendor in order to view "public" documents. They state time and time again what their requirements for a doc format are, and that if Microsoft were to offer one they would consider it. MS, unsurprisingly, does not offer one...
Quite concrete problem (Score:2)
On the other hand, when I wrote papers in WordPerfect 4.2 or so, not much later, those formats are still
Re:Quite concrete problem (Score:2)
A)It'll be supported for a *long, long* time, and
B)100 years from now writing a parser to extract all that old data will be trivial.
It's not that the data is easier to understand (though it is). It's that everyone has equal access to the instructions to build such a parser.
Also, I suspect that if it does become an ISO standard, OASIS OpenDocument will remain as a subset of any future docume
Re:Quite concrete problem (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Massachussets stated reason for switching to the OpenDocument format is that it allows them to guarantee access to important state documents. However, my guess is that this is just a fancy sugar coating over the real reason for switching, and that reason is the cost of migrating to Office 12. There is a very interesting exchange in the MP3 of the recent meeting that the state officers had with various software companies in which, after nearly an hour of saying that the state didn't want to talk about procurement, one of the Mass. officers let the Microsoft team have it right between the eyes. Basically he laid out the costs that Massachussetts would incur in a switch to MS Office 12, and it was clear that the costs were much higher than a switch to OO.org.
Massachussets is going to have to switch document formats no matter what they do. The new version of MS Office 12 is going to have a completely new set of document formats that won't be backwards compatible. Yes, Microsoft has promised plugins for some of the older versions of MS Office that will read and write these new formats, and yes Microsoft has tools that allow for batch conversion of documents, but OpenOffice.org has this as well. The state of Massachussetts has an estimated 50,000 desktops, primarily running Windows 2000. In order to use MS Office 12 Massachussetts would have to upgrade the operating system on all of these boxes, and in many cases it would need to purchase new hardware to boot. Not only that, but Office 12 also has an entirely redesigned user interface which would require additional user training.
Do you see where this is going? Massachussetts estimates (using past knowlegde of similar Microsoft updates) that a move to Office 12 would cost $50 million dollars. A move to OpenOffice.org is estimated to cost an order of magnitude less ($5 million dollars). Heck, if Microsoft is going to force their customers to a new set of file formats, with a new UI, and a new operating system then its almost certain that OO.org on their existing operating system and using existing hardware will be less expensive. OO.org also forces you to use a new file format and it will require training, but Massachussetts won't have to throw an OS upgrade into the mix.
The reason that Massachussetts can get away with the switch is that they are big enough that they can simply mandate a file format and expect people that deal with them to make the switch. You don't argue with the bureaucrats. If they want their documents in OpenDocument formats then you simply find a way to send them OpenDocument formats. The fact that the software necessary to deal with the state government is going to be a free download is just a bonus. If Massachussetts required MS Office 12, or WordPerfect, or even LaTeX that's what people would send them.
One thing is certain, a lot of businesses and individuals in Massachussetts are going to find it necessary to download and install OpenOffice.org, and many of them are going to like what they find. It's almost certainly going to become much more difficult to sell new versions of MS Office in Massachussetts. After all, unless you are some sort of MS Office power user you are not even likely to be able to tell the difference between the two programs, and OO.org is going to be required for dealing with the government.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Of all of the OpenOffice.org family Writer is far and away the best piece of software. In fact, due to the fact that it makes it much easier to use styles in your document than MS Word I actually like Writer better than Word. The real problem with OO.org has always been file format compatibility with MS Office. I know that I have kept around a copy of MS Office for years now simply to test documents before sending them to MS Office users. For the most part OO.org has worked well, but sometimes there hav
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
I, and anyone else who have creating word documents for the past decade or so, know how fustrating it is to go back and try to edit old work. Now, if one is using word as a toy, i.e. school papers or memos that no one really reads, then it doesn't matter how the work is saved, because the computer is just a fnacy typewriter, and no one will care about the do
Microsoft just trying to stop Massachusetts... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Microsoft just trying to stop Massachusetts... (Score:4, Informative)
Note: while MS Office documents can be open in abiword and openoffice, it's kind of a closed format that can never be 100 percent documented, so compability can't be perfect. Only MS Office use fully the format so there's a dependency on Microsoft by using its format.
This will be M$'s strategy... (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send them back?
Suppose M$ suddenly decides to support OpenDocument, gets the state's business and then issues a "security patch", that introduces proprietary extensions as has been in the past?
Re:This will be M$'s strategy... (Score:2)
Open Office or all packages that support OpenDoc can read the MS word format without any problem. Likewise, the reply docs can be saved in word doc versions and still be read by the Fed systems running MS Office. I don't see any problems here.... except for locked down formats like Microsoft's.
Re:This will be M$'s strategy... (Score:5, Informative)
> a state's authority.
You do not understand correctly.
> By the way, what will happen when the Federal government sends
> documents to Massachusetts in word format? Would the state send
> them back?
The state will read them with OpenOffice, of course. What do you think?
> Suppose M$ suddenly decides to support OpenDocument, gets the
> state's business and then issues a "security patch", that
> introduces proprietary extensions as has been in the past?
Either the "extensions" will be turned off or Microsoft will lose the state's business again, and perhaps find itself in court for breach of contract.
Re:This will be M$'s strategy... (Score:2)
> > a state's authority.
> You do not understand correctly.
If only that were true...
The feds have multiple ways of overriding a state's authority. Foremost, the vague clause in the constitution that gives the feds the power over anything (article I, section 8, clause 18) tends to be abused quite a bit.
This used to be a major difference in the parties - traditionally, one party supported use of clause 18 while the other opp
Re:This will be M$'s strategy... (Score:3, Informative)
Only in cases that deal wih the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. As of yet, there is no federal law that says that the all documents within the United States must be in Word format. Even if Congress tried to pass one (which would be silly), the current Supreme Court would probably strike it down for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the Rhenquist Court was pretty good about telling Congress to st
Re:This will be M$'s strategy... (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess?
Massachusetts will open it in OpenOffice.org (or IBM's upcoming thin-client ODP solution), and file a complaint with the federal government "We've received XXX.doc, please be aware that it is against the policy of the State of Massachusetts to work with documents not in the ODP ISO-standard format. Your document has been converted to an ODP format document-- the S
Mod Parent UP Please (Score:2)
My guess? Use OpenOffice.org as a conversion filter. Then, various fed employees (IT people) will start wondering _why_ they should be paying for MS Office when they *already* use a similar office suite as a _conversion_ filter."
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Why aren't big companies doing this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I bring it up to any of my clients, government or private side, they give me that deer in the headlights look. Even if you can dig out an old backup tape and demonstrate the files aren't conveniently recoverable it still doesn't seem to sink in.
The same with database storage. I'm amazed how many companies don't even have a freakin data dictionary. If you have to ask why you need one of those, then you need one. Maybe you just really like transposing fields and data types on the fly between every application you build. People must find that pleasurable because there's sure enough of them doing it.
Just the beginning (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) For some odd reason, nobody had every really put forth a major, viable, industry-backed and powerful open specification for Office formats
(2) Compatibility with existing documents. Most large corps have many
Re:Why aren't big companies doing this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why aren't big companies doing this? (Score:2)
MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding (Score:4, Insightful)
In this way, they could show governments that they *can* move to open standards, while still maintaining their (for MS) lucrative relationship. Instead, as per usual, we get stonewalling out of Redmond.
Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding (Score:2)
The only thing that MS can use to differentiate their software is its native
Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding (Score:2)
However, it's also clear that by refusing to support an open system such as OASIS, they're entirely losing their user base in the MA government. If this continues and becomes a trend, by not supporting the OASIS formats, Microsoft is actually locking themselves out of the market, instead of locking themselves in, as
Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding (Score:2)
Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding (Score:2)
The MS XML Office doc format is still proprietary in nature. As one article or another noted, it's not just the XML-ness of the OASIS formats that's important, it's the fact that there is a shared, open, and agreed-upon parser for these documents. The semantics of the XML have to be identical in order for everything to work properly. Microsoft is not, to the best of my knowledge, releasing all associ
Re:MS could embrace this and stop the bleeding (Score:2)
You *really* don't know what you are talking about.
Repeat after me, "XML is not a document format" "XML is not a document format"
XML is a general purpose markup language you can use to define document formats.
Grandparent is correct. MS Office 12 will NOT save in the soon to be ISO approved, OASIS OpenDocument format. Period.
Office Open XML != OpenDocument XML
Just because they both have XML in the name doesn't mean that they are the same thing. There might be a possib
Oh no! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
They'll be restricted to cross-platform embedded Java VOIP apps in their wordprocessors, instead of using Windows-only ActiveX VOP apps in their wordprocessors.
Oh Noes!
Strangely, though, my VOIP java-app doesn't work properly. No matter what printer I print my document out on, and no matter how hard I ink out the 'Send' button, I don't hear any voice from my letter. Maybe the ActiveX version would work?
*shrug*
8*)
Why so many replies with M$ FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why so many replies with M$ FUD? (Score:2)
Yup, the scientists have had it all wrong for years. Newton should have charged a license fee for access to his research, E=mc^2 should be a secret unless you're a paid up member of the Einstein corporation. Free software is far closer to the concepts of freely shared scientific information than any concept of getting crappy freebies.
It's that free sharing of
Software As A Commodity (Score:5, Insightful)
Once this happens (and it already is, slowly), the software companies will have to make their money by creating "ten-percenter" software: highly specialized software contracted and built specifically for another company, or a niche market. To use an analogy, the "ninety-percenter" software market right now is like tract housing. Companies build products that they think people will like, and then sell them when the product is finished. The future of software design is much more like contract housing; people contact a company, tell them what they want in their product, and the company builds it for a contract fee, specifically for that customer. Both types of software development co-exist now, but soon the tract style will not be maintainable as a business model since groups of people are giving away tract houses for free.
Microsoft is struggling right now with the future of their products. Microsoft Office will soon be obsolete if MS continues their current business model, since there will be nothing to justify its high price. Right now, Microsoft maintains their pricepoint with vendor lock-in; but as soon as every major company and government is using open standards, MS Office will be just one choice out of several. I can see Microsoft Office being quite profitable in a commodity market, but Microsoft will have to add more than just office-suite productivity to their software. They have to offer more value than the next guy: in the form of tech support, or service contracts, or collaboration/version tracking software, or any of a number of things that would add value to the commodity. The commodity alone will not be enough.
This is a very good move by Massachusetts; in the long run, it will protect valuable data from vendor lock-in, and eventually foster competition in the office suite marketplace. Competition is always a Good Thing(tm).
MA document sovernty (Score:2)
listen to the MA open format meeting. This is about nothing more than storage of
a document is a fashion that allows everyone equal access. MS can choose to implement the standard or they can choose not to. It is about preserving the sovernty of data owned and created by the MA govt.
http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wiki
I highly doubt MS is going to support this document format as it will no
TeX anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And the results of this: (Score:3, Insightful)
On top of that, I'm also sure they'd identify weaknesses in the specification and ensure that their .odt files are laced with extra namespaces & markup
Re:And the results of this: (Score:2, Insightful)
If there is a *policy* in place that tells folks that they must save in the ODF, then those folks will naturally ask their IT staff to make it easier to do, whether it's with a MS product add-on or OpenOffice or KOffice, or whatever.
Well done, Massachusetts.
Re:And the results of this: (Score:5, Informative)
This sounds very similar to what Microsoft is doing with HTML/CSS/JS. Before they release a new browser, they state how CSS2 is "flawed," and therefore we wont support it (And I'm betting that they will add propritary functions that do a similar thing). The same thing happened with the half-assed support of pretty much any standards in HTML/JS...yes, they might have one or two parts that follow standards, but the rest is either proprietary, or a horrible "improved" take on the standards.
I'm sure MS will attempt to do the same thing to ODT files. They will make some fairly basic functions in Office stored in a "enhanced" form, which, ofcourse, only works in MS Office. Judging from past experiance, the "standard" files genorated by Office would be a horrible mash of invalid markup, useless elements, and namespaces that server no purpose; except to break compatibility with any other program. In their usual style, they will probally hide a series of options hidden under 12 dialog windows which are the only way to genorate an actual standard document. Not only this, those options would probally pop up a "scary sounding" warning when disabled, to stop the non-techies among us from changing them.
Just to back this up, look at the XML Word genorates for a document that only contains "Hello world!" (No, I'm not joking, check for yourself).
Re:And the results of this: (Score:3, Funny)
Jeff
Re:And the results of this: (Score:3, Interesting)
When properly indented, it seems quite reasonable. What really scaries me is the <w:validateAgainstSchema/> <w:saveInvalidXML w:val="off"/> bits...
Re:And the results of this: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And the results of this: (Score:2)
That's the meat of the new policy. The documents *must* be kept in an Open format. Right now, that means OASIS OpenDocument. Period.
Re:long overdue (Score:3, Insightful)
Is this true? Are most users running Open Office? Is it 5%?, 10%?, 50%??? It is A standard, but is it THE standard?
Re:MS Office already uses open formats (Score:5, Insightful)
Wikipedia defines XML: "The Extensible Markup Language (XML) is a W3C-recommended general-purpose markup language for creating special-purpose markup languages. It is a simplified subset of SGML, capable of describing many different kinds of data. Its primary purpose is to facilitate the sharing of data across different systems, particularly systems connected via the Internet. Languages based on XML (for example, RDF, RSS, MathML, XHTML, SVG, and cXML) are defined in a formal way, allowing programs to modify and validate documents in these languages without prior knowledge of their form.
One uses XML to 'define' a document format. The problem is that one could easily define a format (schema), permit royalty free-licensing, but 'patent' the schema/format.
Remember GIF?
MS XML formats have this problem. One, there are a couple licensing requirements. Two, the royalty-free license does *not* grant the licensee rights to use any MS patents that the document format may utilize. Even if one interprets some as the text as granting a right to the patents for certain implementations of MS XML, there's no reason to believe you have a perpetual right to those patents.
MS has some control over who can implement these formats, and for instruments of public policy, that is simply not acceptable.
MS is free to implement OASIS formats, because everyone is free to implement them. Governments are having to upgrade anyways--> DOC is being phased out. It's either switch to OASIS (ISO-approved), with multi-vendor support, and shipping software that supports it; or switch to MS Office Open XML, which hasn't been released yet, which *no* software on the market currently supports, which is not vendor neutral in implementation, and is not any kind of 'official' standard.
People use DOC over all the other formats because it has marketshare. MS Office Open XML has 0 marketshare right now. It has to compete on its merits alone, and a such, is failing.
Read here for more information:
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/why-opendocument-w
Re:MS Office already uses open formats (Score:3, Interesting)
1. OpenOffice.org (read, Sun's Proxy) is one of the forces behind OASIS, but by no means the main force. There are quite a few heavyweights, both vendors and customers. Here's a list:
Vendors:
Adobe (Framemaker, Distiller)
Arbortext (Arbortext Enterprise Publishing System)
Corel (Word Perfect)
IBM (Lotus 1-2-3, Workplace)
KDE (Koffice)
SpeedLegal (SmartPrecedent enterprise document assembly system); both product and company later changed names to Exari.
Sun Microsystems / OpenOf
Re:This does NOT exclude MS Office (Score:3, Interesting)
The amount of work would be quite a lot, especially if they wished to make said plug-in proprietary.
Also, I imagine that MS would try to break this plug-in quite a bit.
It's much more likely that someone would make a separate go-in between filter program.
If you are going to use a separate program, however, you might as well run OpenOffice.org to do you conversion. You could have an OpenOffice.org java/macro program that did exactly that. Drop the file on your openoffice.org con