- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
California is trying to pass an open document requirement for all of it electronic documents
|
|
|
Comments (4)
The "open XML" makes me very concerned, since that is the name by which Microsoft has labeled their closed binary-only format of the future.
No. If you read the article it's very clear:
OOXML fails on all four points. Point 1 and 2 could probably be sleazed around
1) with the translators OOXML is interoperable with OpenOffice and ODF. 2) OOXML itself is freely available. Just some components that it relies (i.e. referenced) on are not.
Quoting: (1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications. (2) Fully published and available royalty-free. (3) Implemented by multiple vendors. (4) Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.
OOXML fails on all four points. Point 1 and 2 could probably be sleazed around
1) with the translators OOXML is interoperable with OpenOffice and ODF. 2) OOXML itself is freely available. Just some components that it relies (i.e. referenced) on are not.
Quoting:(1) Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications.
Item (1) should read "100% and fully Interoperable ..."
Item (2) should read "Fully published and available royalty-free including all internal & external inserts"
I'm sure that Microsoft will find a way to make it seem to qualify to the legislators, no matter how much they cost.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post