Its worse than that though. They are not accepting OOXML as "open", but have instead lowered their standards to a point where OOXML is acceptable. Their own processes have been ignored in this case. Groklaw discusses it in more detail:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070703002707260 In my own opinion, I think a LOT of money has changed hands. (i.e. bribes) Shawn Evan Cortens wrote: > Further to our earlier discussions, it seems that Massachusetts is > likely to approve Microsoft's OOXML. > > More here: > > http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9026082&intsrc=hm_list > > And of course, comments on Slashdot: > > http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/03/0255201 > > A shame, really, that a government can be fooled simply by the > inclusion of the word "open" in the title. From the article: "Open XML > does meet our established criteria for an open standard," said Bethann > Pepoli, the state's acting CIO, in an e-mail to Computerworld. "There > is industry support for Open XML and we believe that by adopting the > standard we will be able to accelerate the pace of migration to XML > document formats." > > Industry support? When only one company can generate the format > properly, I'd hardly call that support... > > Hopefully they see the light on this one before it goes through. > > Evan > > _______________________________________________ > clug-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca > Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) > **Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
