[odf-discuss] Mass may endorse OXML.

[Lars Noodén]

marbux wrote:
> On 7/4/07, Lars Noodén <lars at umich.edu> wrote:
>> And that is the core of the proposal...

>> 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," 

Yes, that is my point.  It's about redefining or ignoring existing
definitions or criteria for open.

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

That is a point we need to focus on.

Another is that there is a small likelihood that the format used by MS'
product is the same as Ecma 376.  Very likely it will be quite
different, though in undocumented ways.

> The interoperability tools to allow Mass. to switch to ODF 
> at little or no expense are not available.

Regarding the expense of the tools, the expense to move to MSO 2007 will
not be small.  Same with some upcoming version of MS Outlook.  Both are
to be vectors for MOOX or some MOOX-like variant.

> They don't have the money to do a rip out and
> replace migration.

Ballmer is apparently successful in spreading the belief and point of
view of 'rip and replace'.  I realize the microsoft effect has spread to
many facets of life, but basic common sense and basic software
engineering dictate that things be done in stages.  There's nothing,
yet, preventing ITD from rolling out OpenOffice parallel with existing
legacy packages.

I have difficulty imagining that there are any gullible enough to thing
that the plug-ins from or sponsored by MS will ever work better with ODF
than the company's earlier tools worked with HTML.

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