GeekPAC

I have purposely avoided the technical debate over document formats as A.) I feel they’re beside the point and B.) they tend to break down into “my technology is better than yours” - which is wholly unproductive. However, as more states consider open formats legislation, it’s important to know something about the 2 formats most widely considered to be the front-runners in the open formats race.

Sam Hiser, who is the Vice President & Director of Business Affairs at the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc., has written an incredibly detailed and comprehensive document on the subject of technical differences between the two formats. You’ll note that he is clearly biased and uses this document to advocate ODF over OOXML. Be that as it may, his arguments are worthy of consideration, especially since many legislators really have only a cursory knowledge of the issues at hand. It’s not out of the realm of possibility for a legislative body to be hoodwinked by crafty lobbyists who put forward a standard that really isn’t as open as they claim.

In any case, read the full document. It’s dense stuff, but definitely worth your time. And make sure you digest these 4 claims:

• ODF is developed and maintained in an open, multi-vendor, multi-stakeholder process that protects against control by a single organization. OOXML is less open in its development and maintenance, despite being submitted to a formal standards body, because control of the standard ultimately wrests with one organization.
• ODF is the only openly-available standard, published fully in a document that is freely available and easy to comprehend. This openness is reflected in the number of competing applications in which ODF is already implemented. Unlike ODF, OOXML’s complexity, extraordinary length, technical omissions and single-vendor dependencies combine to make alternative implementation unattractive as well as legally and practically impossible.
• ODF is the only format unencumbered by intellectual property rights (IPR) restrictions on its use in other software, as certified by the Software Freedom Law Center. Conversely, many elements designed into the OOXML formats but left undefined in the OOXML specification require behaviors upon document files that only Microsoft Office applications can provide. This makes data inaccessible and breaks work group productivity whenever alternative software is used.
• ODF offers interoperability with ODF-compliant applications on most of the common operating system platforms. OOXML is designed to operate fully within the Microsoft environment only. Though it will work elegantly across the many products in the Microsoft catalog, OOXML ignores accepted standards and best practices regarding its use of XML .

Happy reading!

It has been reported in ComputerWorld that Microsoft has trounced all of the pro-open formats bills that were being deliberated in 6 state legislatures across the US at one time this year. California’s AB 1668 was, unfortunately, one of them.

The most recent defeat occurred last Thursday in California, where a toned-down version of a bill in favor of open formats was declared to be stalled in the state assembly’s Committee on Appropriations — even though the bill’s sponsor, Mark Leno a Democratic assemblyman for San Francisco, chairs the committee.

It would seem, then, that the only way to send the right message is to make sure that those on the appropriations committee know that Californians do, in fact, care about their information rights. Coming soon: a list of everyone on the appropriations committee and how you may voice your displeasure to them.