Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument

Brian Jones Office Extensibility Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument | debt solutions

Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:29:35 GMT

PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=3887

Brian Jones Office Extensibility Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument | pool toys

Thu, 18 Jun 2009 11:39:17 GMT

PingBack from http://pooltoysite.info/story.php?id=1301

Brian Jones Office Extensibility Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument | Quick Diets

Sat, 13 Jun 2009 16:19:45 GMT

PingBack from http://quickdietsite.info/story.php?id=11430

Brian Jones Office Extensibility Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument | Portable Greenhouse

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 10:57:57 GMT

PingBack from http://portablegreenhousesite.info/story.php?id=30730

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats : Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument at Restaurants

Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:25:35 GMT

PingBack from http://restaurants.247blogging.info/?p=188

Frequently Asked Questions

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:17:23 GMT

Andrew Sayers had a great suggestion that I should have a page set up that gives an overview of the blog

Spin Spin Sugar

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 16:27:26 GMT

OK, forgive the random Sneaker Pimps reference and I promise we will move off this topic of ODF politics...

Thoughts on Open XML in ISO

Brian Jones: Open XML Formats — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 21:31:23 GMT

As we move forward with the standardization of the Office Open XML formats, it's interesting to look...

re: Comments from Tim Bray on OpenDocument

Todd Knarr — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 19:48:40 GMT

Mark: I think you're wrong about the timing. Firstly, MA doesn't intend to change over tomorrow. As I understand it the transition isn't going to happen over the course of weeks or months, it's going to be phased in over the course of a couple of years at least. You have to start at some point or people will just keep putting it off, and I really don't see where anyone remotely competent will have a problem meeting timeframes of several years to comply. As for waiting for products, why wait when the products already exist and are mature? The OpenDocument standard's had several years already to be hashed out, with document users constantly using the spec and providing feedback about what in their documents isn't supported by the spec. Boeing and IBM both have requirements a lot more complex than most users will ever have, and I doubt they'd've signed off on something for their own use that they knew didn't support their existing documents. As for products, there's at least 3 that either already support OpenDocument or will within the next couple-three months (all of them have been preparing for this support for a long time now and have had it working in CVS releases to make sure it gets tested). Saying to wait for products to come out with support now is like saying to wait for the train to arrive when the train's not just sitting at the platform but blowing it's whistle and getting ready to pull out.

I think you're right, though, about the commodity nature MA's looking for. They explicitly said it, in fact: they're looking for a format that can be implemented by any number of vendors so both they and anybody who has to deal with them can have a variety of choices *and* can interoperate without having to all make the same choice.

As for the expensive government purchases, I agree that some of them are silly. On the other hand, I recall a comment by an Air Force maintenance officer: "Yeah, 5 grand for a coffee-maker's a lot more than you'll pay for one from WalMart. But the coffee-maker in your kitchen doesn't have to make good coffee when the boiling point of water's 20 degrees lower because of lower cabin pressure, and it doesn't have to keep scalding-hot water from flying around the cabin when it's inverted and there's 5 g's trying to pull the pot off of the warming plate.". Or contrast document readability concerns, where Microsoft can't even read their own formats from 15 years ago (Word95, Word 6) correctly, while governments have survey and land-title deed documents from the 1700s that're actively used by surveyors today. We won't even get into NASA losing data that isn't even as old as I am because the formats aren't known and the hardware to read the media isn't made anymore. Silly requirements are just that, silly, but government sometimes does really have requirements that're just that different.

re: Todd's comments

Mark Miller — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:23:46 GMT

Hi Todd. I understand what they wanted. I think perhaps what hamstrings Microsoft in this particular situation is that I don't believe they've ever made a custom version of their software for particular clients. I could be wrong about that, but I've never heard of them doing it. This is just my image of Office, but I've always seen it as a one-size-fits-all application suite. If they implement a feature, they implement it for *everyone* that could potentially buy the product. That's the POV I was speaking from.

To tell you the truth, MA's decision reminds me of how government bureaucracy used to be described before President Clinton came to office. One of the initiatives the Clinton Admin. tried to put through, called "Reinventing Government", tried to do away with, as much as possible, custom designed products that were made just for the federal government. I remember Al Gore talked about an example of a floor cleaner that was made to the bureaucrats' exact specifications. Like everyone's been saying with this case, this was just the government saying what they wanted. It was up to manufacturers to bid and make it for them, whichever ones wanted to participate.

The thing was they couldn't buy the floor cleaner from any well-known manufacturer, because none of them wanted to bother with making a custom product for the government. They made more money making a commodity product that was sold to more customers. It was illegal for the government to buy any formula that didn't fit the specification. So the federal government bought it from either one or a few manufacturers at very high cost, when compared to the retail equivalent. The "Reinventing Government" program tried to change that, and as I heard, partly succeeded, thus lowering the operating cost of government a bit.

I think the Executive Agency is trying to kill two birds with one stone. They want the open archiving format, and they feel they'll also see a significant savings by not having to pay as much in commercial licensing. The difference here is that a standards committee, OASIS, has come up with the format, so more customers than just the state of MA can potentially use it, maybe creating a greater economy of scale for products that support it.

Ultimately, I wish MA success in whatever they do. I want IT to succeed, no matter how it's implemented. I know I can't judge their decision entirely from afar (as I am far away from the situation, literally), but from what I've read, I would take issue with this decision of theirs if I was working with them, particularly about the timing. I'd say, spread the word around that this is what you want, get producers interested in the concept, wait for the products that support what you want to come out, let them find a market, let the products mature, and let the market winnow out the weaker players, and then make the choice. What's the rush?