[odf-discuss] Mass may endorse OXML.

[Lars Noodén]

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols posted an interesting discussion of MS'
current attempt at redefining "open" in its current attack against
Massachusetts:

	http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2154193,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616

Thomas Zander wrote:
> ... And we come round circle; MS claims that OOXML is an open standard, due to 
> the fact that it got a review round in Ecma. ...

The claim hinges on approval (rubber stamp) by a committe within Ecma.
This steers the discussion away from the established definition[1] of
"Open":
	http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3761
	http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html
	http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/3132/333
	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standards

Also, from what I gather all consideration of MOOX in the national
standards bodies is also being based upon the one Ecma committee's
approval rather than evaluation of any kind done by the standards bodies
themselves.  That in itself seems peculiar.

Best regards,
-Lars

[1]	Interestingly enough, here also Google bites us.  A search for
IDABC, open and standard brings forth no link to the original document
defining Open Standards for the EU.  Though it does bring up critique:
http://www.google.fi/search?q=idabc+open+standard+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

-- 
Lars Noodén
Ensure access to your data in the future:
	http://www.noooxml.org/petition/
	http://opendocumentfellowship.org/introduction