Posted on 09/29/2005 8:52:01 PM PDT by Golden Eagle
The broader media usually take little interest in public policy debates about technology, but they’re missing a big story in Massachusetts.
The technology trades, blogs and industry are buzzing about a monumental policy shift in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats.
Such a policy might seem like something that should concern only a small group of technology professionals, but in fact the implications are staggering and far-reaching. The policy promises to burden taxpayers with new costs and to disrupt how state agencies interact with citizens, businesses and organizations.
Worse, the policy represents an attack on market-based competition, which in turn will hurt innovation. The state has a disaster in the making.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, then, were did the existing documents in this format come from? Magical elves?
You've managed to make yourself look even stupider than usual, and that's an accomplishment.
I've seen more dignified discussions from Pied Piper Pitt on DU.
If people outside Microsoft can get into them right now, should be a piece of cake in 100 years.
By implementing open standards, governments will have a much more certain and managable path to ensure that documents created today will be accessible in the future.
MS products are already compatible with multiple standard formats. And their new formats are even more open. There's nothing that this new ODF format provides, other than an incumbance on the constituents to load something additional and different to what most already have.
I've written applications to extract data from both PDFs and BIFF format, and I've developed systems to handle massive volumes of documents. The PDF project went much better than BIFF because the official data format specification was readily available.
So are the new formats for Office. You mean you didn't know? Or chose to ignore? BTW, this white paper specifically mentions your 100 year "dilema".
Kind of like I can link you to Kevin Bacon in 7 moves.
Really? Name one. And then you can probably use the same answer as a replacement for PDF.
What makes you say PDF can't be replaced? Or must be used? I'm asking with true sincerity. I really don't see what it provides that is so vital that other Open Standards technology or what Microsoft Technology can't also provide. So why only exempt PDF?
I just downloaded 2.0 and it has the feature. the old 1.0.2 didn't, although it had a well hidden work around.
Give me a link that says PDF is allowed in court and DOCs aren't.
PDF is easily modifiable. So that reason falls flat. In fact, I've done some work for big law firms that use Word exclusively. Well they used to use wordperfect but finally had to get rid of it because it just didn't get support that they needed.
But if you're talking about scanning documents about TIFF or even .png?
We've heard of Microsoft's XINO. The term was coined on this forum.
BTW, this white paper specifically mentions your 100 year "dilema".
It was briefly mentioned, but without the file specs, there is no way to evaluate the validity of their claim.
Microsoft Office Open XML Formats
Where are the formats? The file you linked to was a puff piece that was useless to me as a developer. Send me the official spec.
Here is a link to the PDF spec, ready to download and use with very reasonable and minimal conditions. No signup or contract is required. Even if Adobe goes out of business a hundred years from now, the spec will always be available for development purposes, including open source development or proprietary software.
Your absurd suggestion illustrates why Microsoft formats shouldn't be trusted for document storage.
Right on Microsoft's website, where they've been since January.
Whoops, those aren't the new ones. The Office 12 Open XML schemas aren't yet available, but should be closer to the product ship date.
I've seen that link before - but the spec is contained in a weird, non-portable, OS-dependent format (msi) - so I can't access it. Why couldn't they just put it in a Word document?
In contrast, the PDF Specification is available in PDF format - and as a printed book published by Addison-Wesley.
The ODF Specification is available at the OASIS-Open website - in PDF and ODF format. Suddenly, the ODF format has great potential - thanks to the new policy in Massachusetts. I need to get busy learning about ODF and the other OASIS protocols.
While I agree it should be in Word, you just undercut your larger document by admitting you can easily access Word even without having any MS software.
All I can see so far is someone who wanted to jump in like a banty rooster and defend an inciteful shill.
My point was I was re-reading a thread and noticed you name-callig. Just pointing out the fact that you using a tactic called name calling.
Are you saying that you weren't name calling?
Oh yea right there on the page for any windows system in the world to use..
90% of the world's people use Microsoft Windows, whether that causes you immense emotional distress or not.
I dont know if I can agree with that- wither way it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I am againt what MA did. I think it will make more barriers (especially sharing documents with other government agencies)
Plus I have a feeling some 'open source' zealots are behind their thinking. Thois people are like liberals in their blind faith to their religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.