[odf-discuss] Mass may endorse OXML.

[marbux]

On 7/4/07, Lars Noodén <lars at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> Daniel Carrera wrote:
>
> > True. Of course it's easier to stay with MS because they are locked in.
> > This is why we need open standards in the first place...
>
> And that is the core of the proposal.  It's not about letting in MOOX
> directly, as the headlines are suggesting, it's about ignoring or
> changing the established definition of open so as *then* be able to let
> in MOOX.


I know that is what Pamela surmised. But if you read the proposal carefully,
they've already classified OOXML as "open," so it doesn't seem to me to be
about redefining "open" to include "de facto standards."

On the other hand, she is unquestionably correct that OOXML fails several
items on ITD's checklist for an acceptable format.

Fortunately it is still in the proposal stage, though not necessarily
> easy to neutralize.
>
> I think it will be very difficult to change that course. The
interoperability tools to allow Mass. to switch to ODF at little or no
expense are not available.They don't have the money to do a rip out and
replace migration.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070704/522b3193/attachment-0001.html