California Joins Open Document Bandwagon 188
Andy Updegrove writes "A legislator in California has decided that it's time for California to get on the open formats bandwagon. If all of the bills filed in the last few weeks pass, California, Texas, and Minnesota will all require, in near-identical language, that 'all documents, including, but not limited to, text, spreadsheets, and presentations, produced by any state agency shall be created, exchanged, and preserved in an open extensible markup language-based, XML-based file format.' What type of formats will qualify? Again, the language is very uniform (the following is from the California statute): 'When deciding how to implement this section, the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features: (1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications; (2) Fully published and available royalty-free; (3) Implemented by multiple vendors; (4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.'"
Minnesota also (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Minnesota also (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens for instance if tomorrow all of us wonderful Slashdot readers co-developed a magical format that not only was open and cross platform but inexplicably worked with all currently available office suites without modification...
Re:Minnesota also (Score:5, Interesting)
This is good news... why be negative about it?
Re: (Score:2)
The law should make clear the intent without interfering too much in actually carrying out the goal. Since it is a law, every little bit of cruft can have remarkably far reaching effects in terms of unintended consequences.
Re:Minnesota also (Score:4, Insightful)
The tech needs to be spelled out clearly in the law, otherwise vendors like Microsoft will be able to say their format qualifies and lobby until enough tech-clueless legislators agree to it.
No brainer (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The tech needs to be spelled out clearly in the law
Which regulatory agency will now be responsible for document formats? Are word processing docs, spreadsheets, slide presentations, and simple desktop databases now to be subjected to government regulation? If so, Congress needs to get in the act to establish consistent regulation for the nation. I would guess these regulations will be managed by the FTC, but I am not sure. It will be interesting to see how it works out.
Given that web browsers are more com
Re: (Score:2)
We're not talking about individual choice here - we're talking about government agency internal use, which is something that should not be subject to the whims of a few private individuals or a few corporations.
Everything the government does should be in open and accessible formats.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, if web browsers were used to produce thousands of publicly-owned documents per year and created them in a locked, proprietary format that was built to attempt to force million
illegal now: PNG, JPEG, PDF, OGG... (Score:3, Informative)
All audio formats are now illegal.
Probably all image formats are now illegal.
Whee.... this'll be entertaining.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, these laws don't say anything about what the public should use, they only specify open formats for the government to use.
In Completely Unrelated News... (Score:2, Interesting)
What does XML have to do with it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Criteria n3 (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, Microsoft is quickly subsidizing 3 small companies to write quick and meaningless stupid plug-ins using OOXML as input, just to pretend that their format is "Implemented by multiple vendors" and on "diverse (...) platforms" (ie.: Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP *and* Windows Vista)...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news, Microsoft is quickly subsidizing 3 small companies to write quick and meaningless stupid plug-ins using OOXML as input, just to pretend that their format is "Implemented by multiple vendors" and on "diverse (...) platforms" (ie.: Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP *and* Windows Vista)...
I think MS may actually have already squeezed through this particular hole. The reality is that other vendors are going to have to be able to read and write OOXML at a basic level for compatability. They'll never fully implement the standard that MS has written because they can't possibly implement the behaviour of the <SpaceLikeWord95> tag and all the others like it, but they'll have something. If you demand a "full" implementation from multiple vendors you're just digging yourself a different hole:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By way of example, let's take something like KOffice. It seems unlikely that KOffice is a complete superset of OpenOffice, therefore even if both OOo and KOffice implement ODF, KOffice can never be completely interoperable with OOo (at least OOo -> Koffice). Further, if KOffice impl
Re: (Score:2)
I think you make a disingenuous argument.
Well, I'm making the deliberately disingenuous argument that I expect Microsoft to make. The simple answer is that not fully implementing the standard is, as you say, pretty much inevitable. That means that the partial implementations of OOXML provided by OpenOffice.org and others can be considered as on the same lavel as the various implementations of ODF - at least as far as the wording of the legislation is concerned. That means, from the point of view of the legislation, it can be argued that ODF and O
Isn't quite the same situation (Score:3, Interesting)
Although the starting situation is mortly similar with OOXML, it isn't quite exactly the same.
Yes, there may be some different way to interpret the standards, and maybe two different implementation produc
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft still isn't an open industry organization, they're one company. I think #4 is the most important part.
Re:What does XML have to do with it? (Score:5, Insightful)
This reminds me of my boss, who keeps saying that we need to publish things in XML, but can't give me any reason why we should. Then again, two years ago I kept on hearing about how our company needed a blog, again with no justification as to how it would help us. Thankfully, that passed. Eventually, the XML thing will, too. Of course, this isn't meant to belittle the things out there that actually can benefit from utilizing an XML format.
You do need a blog (mildly OT) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That being said, XML or a well-defined subset, is a great choice for text documents. It's not the best choice for lots of other structured data but for text that is meant to be human readable in it's raw format, it's great.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Anything can parse any other file formats, too. (Score:2)
Wtf? Why "XML-based", specifically? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wtf? Why "XML-based", specifically? (Score:4, Insightful)
Job security. If they wrote clear, concise, and sharply targeted bills, we wouldn't need to keep electing a fresh crop to fix the mess left by the last one.
American legislation 101 (Score:2, Interesting)
This is over-simplified, but here goes... American laws are made in sub-committees of committees of the legislative body. The committees are packed with 'specialized' delegates, i.e. someone with a political stake or in the pocket of a special interest group, (like Microsoft, OSDL, or Green Peace).
For one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it doesn't. XML made for humans is readable by humans. XML made for computers is not going to be any easier to read by humans in a text editor than a typical binary document format.
Heck, I've even seen self-defining XML documents where the top half contained the tag names and meanings for the bottom half, essentially defining macros to reduce duplication. Toss in several different character encodings and write the data in a random order using pointers (again, to reduce
Re: (Score:2)
<?xml version="1.0"?><!DOCTYPE p [<!ELEMENT p (PCDATA)><!ENTITY b "b"><!ENTITY e "e"><!ENTITY q " "><!ENTITY r "t"><!ENTITY t "?">]><p xmlns="http://example.com/sure/it/is" >Wanna&q;&b;&e;&r;&t;</p>
Sorry, I had to.
(And, yes, that's both well-formed and valid XML! Well-formed means it can be parsed as XML, and the valid part means it validates against its
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think anything a government office writes down about "how they're going to do things" won't lock them in long after it makes sense, you've never worked with any government data, probably have never worked with any legacy data of any sort.
Text in XML? (Score:3, Insightful)
You must not have got the memo (Score:2)
The draw of a markup langauge for documents is that you can print out the raw file and even a lay person can read it just by ignoring the markup tags. Even without knowing anything about xml, I could inspect the file format and write an XML to Text converter in about 1 line of perl.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which truly is the perfect amount of Perl to ever write.
Re: (Score:2)
I can write a text to text converter in about *0 lines* of perl.
Well sure, but you're assuming an encoding standard for the text. If the output text has to be EBCDIC [wikipedia.org] I doubt you'll manage it in zero lines. Given the way things are going, assuming XML as a markup for structured files is no worse than assuming ASCII as the encoding for text files. It doesn't have to be XML, but then a text file doesn't have to be ASCII.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Text in XML? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you've looked at project gutenberg texts, you can see why this is a problem. Not a huge problem, but a problem. When a source text has a non-ascii character in it, they have to put some sequence of ascii characters which will suggest what the glyph is supposed to be. This doesn't really preserve the information in the source document, nor does it make the document easy to read.
So, you could have a trivial text XML format that has only one defined tag. It's still useful:
<xml version="1.0"? encoding="us-ascii">
<text>
This is my text. It has no wacky glyphs so ASCII is fine.
</text>
vs.
<?xml version="1.0"? encoding="utf8">
<text>
This is my text. It has wacky glyphs therefôre ascii sücks for it!
</text>
Could be worse... (Score:2)
(/me ducks and runzlakhell...)
(though /me wonders... why the hell not ps? Guess it doesn't have all those neat little bracketed thingies in it that say "tech!" to the average politician)
Re: (Score:2)
...they could've demanded LaTeX instead.
Actually TeX does have something going for it - there are multiple implementations from different vendors that fully implement the standard and will all produce identical output from a given file. That's more than you can say for any of the XML document formats currently around - even ODF produces different output in different implementations (try opening the same file OpenOffice.org, KWord, and Abiword)! Of course much of that is due to the fact that TeX has been around for so long without any significan
Credit Knuth. (Score:2)
It's like that by design. IIRC, Knuth is very concerned with the stability of TeX, in terms of producing predictable output from a given input file. I've read that the plan is to completely freeze the codebase when he dies -- I think he descr
Computer processability (Score:2)
For a computer, flat plain vanilla text is meaning less, it's just a long stream of ASCII (or UTF-8 if you need accented letters or more alphabets) letters.
For a given flat text, you can't easily extract titles and build a table of content for example, because the titles aren't specifically taged as such.
Therefore you need some tagged kind of format to be able to further process the documents. You can't do it with plain Text (nor ready to print formats like PS or
Re: (Score:2)
Well, XML also offers the ability to have a physical structure to your document, the ability to define new structures (ie, schema), and it's hopefully available in a vendor neutral format.
If you needed to have structured objects in a vendor-neutral format, you might need to come up with your own, or go with a binary structure, or something
<xml>we should do this too</xml> (Score:5, Funny)
<user="wwwillem">
<subject>we should do this too</subject>
<content>
What is good for government documents is also good for Slashdot posts.
</content>
</xml>
Re:we should do this too (Score:2)
Re:we should do this too (Score:2)
Re:we should do this too (Score:2)
Re:we should do this too (Score:2)
<user="Odiumjunkie"
<title="Re:we should do this too"</xml>
<quote id="wwwillem">
<pre><user="wwwillem"></pre>
</quote>
<p><span class="pedantic">Forget to close that tag much?</span></p>
</xml>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What type of formats will qualify? (Score:5, Funny)
More importantly, what *documents* qualify? (Score:2)
As in, do these laws also include stuff like CAD drawings, which currently get stored in Autodesk's proprietary format? That would certainly make me extremely happy, since AutoCAD's monopoly on the CAD industry is as bad or worse than Microsoft's monopoly on office applications.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Death to DWG/DXF.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it's largely useless.
Putting aside people's feelings about Microsoft or ODF, realistically, it ain't gonna happen.
California State agencies, up until now, haven't had to follow any standard document format. Although most use Microsoft Word, the California CMAS master contract that State Agencies use to buy their software has Word, WordPerfect and other word processing packages on it. Which means that agencies can pick and choose w
Re: (Score:2)
Although most use Microsoft Word, the California CMAS master contract that State Agencies use to buy their software has Word, WordPerfect and other word processing packages on it. Which means that agencies can pick and choose what they think that they need. Now the Legislature wants to set one..
They are proposing to set one format, not one word processor. Agencies can still choose among software packages, just with noncompliant packages removed from the bidding. I think there are a dozen products now with ODF support.
If the bill is passed, agencies will need to convert already existing processes and applications to use the new format. With no new staff nor new money to hire someone else to do it.
There are now free software solutions that read both MSWord and ODF files, including Google's Web based offering. When departments start budgeting for next year they will have to take these rules into account and it will probably end up saving them money from their budgets withi
A dozen products? (Score:2)
Are you including things like KOffice?
Where is the compatibility certification that says the documents are rendered identically? You know that is going to come up, sooner or later. Because it is going to be important at a government level. You have preprinted forms that are filled in on the printer. Without i
XML panacea (Score:4, Funny)
Greybeard: Son, now you have two problems.
Re: (Score:2)
I keep seeing that quote posted, but what exactly are those two problems?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that it went (and still is) whooshing over my head, because I don't understand why "having to deal with XML" is a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
XML Problem Checklist:
- Ensure the library functions are flexible enough for the application, and do not consume too many resources. This can be an issue for smaller systems, and may be an issue for larger ones as well.
- Ensure that the XML implementation is usable on a security basis. Should not have buffer overruns - parsing problems etc.
- Ensure that the XML works with ANOTHER XML implementation. Adds testing (its not just "someone elses problem").
- Application data structures are influe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your original post implied (to me at least) that you were missing the point of the meme itself (if I'm misunderestimating you, apologies), especially since I've never seen it applied to XML before. (Agreed that the validity of the meme for both XML and regexps is at least debata
Why is the victim silent? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Government intervention is what it takes to force a level playing field, I will accept it. But still I would prefer it if market forces create a level playing field instead of government mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
If the palying[sic] field becomes level and multiple vendors compete to serve them while being fully inter-operatble, it will be the corporate America that will benefit most. Technically they are the victim of the monopolistic deeds of MSFT. Still they remain silent, and the Govenment, after protecting the citizens from their own stupidity (seat belts, airbags, spacing between crib railings) now comes to rescue corporate America?
Corporate america is not a single entity that acts in a unified fashion. It is a horde of competing companies. Many of those companies probably know that it is in the best interests of corporate america as a whole to switch to open standards, but that does not make it in the best interests of any one company to switch until the others have done so. Aside from that, they can only ask for action through the government.
If Government intervention is what it takes to force a level playing field, I will accept it. But still I would prefer it if market forces create a level playing field instead of government mandates.
It is important to note, that the government is not mandating open standards for corpor
Re: (Score:2)
Because our market based system isn't as good as delivering efficiency as proponents make it out to be. Making money != delivering value to society. Many times the corpoarat profit motive does deliver social value, and often more efficiently then other comparable systems, but its not equivalent and has many disconnects. (see U.S. heathcare for example)
Called my rep (Score:3, Informative)
It may not be perfect, but is a move in the right direction.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Does MS's format qualify? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
(4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.
Re: (Score:2)
If there is such a requirement, then MS's offering would not qualify. However, if they selected ODF, and Office supported ODF properly, then the government offices might very well upgrade to the next Office. That would be a matter for their local IT decision makers.
But the software used must satisf
Re: (Score:2)
(1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications;
"Diverse internal and external..." I think diversity would include Linux distros...MS products don't run natively on Linux-based OS's - Partial failure
Sure, but OpenOffice.org will, and you know they're going to have at least a partial implementation of OOXML working which MS will then point to. I've discussed the issue with demanding a full implementation elsewhere. [slashdot.org]
2) Fully published and available royalty-free;
I assume "Fully..." means no secret binaries, or API's..."available royalty-free" define what is a royalty... as in MS can't "choose" to whom to license it...and can it be passed on? - Partial Failure
Here MS will point to their ISO standard document. Sure, you can debate the issue of whether that is fully published, given the issue of tags like <SpaceLikeWord95> that provide no explanation other than "use spacing
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft's open XML format: (Score:5, Insightful)
<document>
Description of MS Open Format
<![CDATA[
37642364 78346478 23465789 34657834 65783465 78934653 47895634 78563478 65347856
56347825 63478256 34786578 34567893 45678934 65783456 78465783 46578346 57834567
34895723 48957348 90578934 75890347 58934758 93475892
]]>
</document>
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications;
and
(3) Implemented by multiple vendors;
clauses, though it will of course depend on exactly how those are interpreted. It is unlikely that anyone other than Microsoft will fully implement OOXML, so "multiple vendors" rules it out under a strict interpretation. If people want to get around it, however, you can go with a loose interpretation and point to all the vendors who will, out of necessity, provide a basic implementation of OOXML for the sake of compatability and importing documents. Like
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Just specifying XML doesn't mean much, really
Which is why the bill doesn't just specify XML. FTFA,
...the department in its evaluation of open, XML-based file formats shall consider all of the following features:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Texas House and Senate bills (Score:3, Informative)
SB 446 [state.tx.us]
So far, each bill has been filed and referred to the appropriate committee. However, the legislative session just started in January and things don't usually start happening until after the filing deadline on 2007-03-09.
Here's my problem: (Score:5, Insightful)
I am, of course, talking about Microsoft. They refuse to accept the Open standard.
Until that happens, there will be problems. Yes, you could have .odt documents sent internally, but what if someone has to send a document to someone outside the company? Microsoft Office does not recognize .odt, and if you think that you can train someone to remember to send .doc files to outside users, and keep internal documents to .odt, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about government offices here, not companies. The answer to your question in this case is (or at least, should be) "we compel the outside person to get an ODT-compatible program by government fiat."
Re: (Score:2)
Is Arnie still governor? (Score:3, Funny)
Governor Swartzenager said... (Score:2)
Two Possible Outcomes (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the key word here is "properly support". I'm not sure that will happen.
Reality vs. Concepts- (Score:2)
You see, in California, we have this precedence of hiring under-motivate, under-educated, people into roles to fulfill status-quo on the premise of serving equality.
This results in a rule that I call "Factor 4" where by you can take the initial cost of any related project, service or resource requisition, and
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, government agencies are often less wastefull then corporate projects.
Yes, some things go over budget, and when that happens the media jumps on it, and they should.
But it is the exception, otherwise it wouldn't be in the news.
Good news for some (Score:2)
And the answer is ... (Score:2)
The idea that at an enterprise level there are multiple vendors (real vendors, not distributors) of a word processor and spreadsheet program is a joke. There are perhaps three, and the two I know of are OpenOffice/StarOffice and Microsoft. And there are huge questions about the enterprise viability of OpenOffice that have yet to be answered.
Also, the level of complexity for ODF is such that it is unlikely that every implementation is going to render
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Are they being hit by flying chairs, perchance?
Funny you should mention that - (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup... they finally stopped making the packages out of lead when they noticed how much it was driving up their shipping costs.