Hi Christian,
<Christian>"There are many of us in the community, including myself foremost of all, who will probably not appreciate the significance of this news for quite some time.</snip>
Well, ponder this. The European Union requirements specifically state that information systems and applications must support an Open XML file format that is approved by, maintained by, and managed by an Internationally recognized Open Standards Group. Having some hesitation about OASIS (which has since proven to be a most valid concern), the EU requested that the OASIS OpenDocument TC submit the OpenDocument specification to ISO following OASIS approval.
We need this approval Christian. The EU needs this approval.
Let's take the concern one step further. In March the Commonwealth of Massachusetts released their requirements for future information system purchases. This followed months of sturm und drang posturing by Eric Kriss, the Massachusetts official who set out to make Open Standards and Open Source the foundation of the Commonwealths digital future. IMHO the whole thing was a set up, a trap cooked up between Eric and Microsoft to confuse the marketplace as to what an Open Standard is, and, at the same time smear Open Source efforts regarding compliance with the new quagmire of definitions for the meaning of both "Open" and "Open Standards".
If you don't believe me, just ask yourself who loses when the Commonwealth trumpets loudly their decision to go with Open Standards and Open XML file formats, and then proceeds to stamp Microsoft proprietary implementations, restrictive licenses, and patent encumbered file formats as both Open and Standard? And qualifying as Open XML technologies! Open Source loses! The marketplace of computational services and information systems loses because there is no longer any transparency or guarantee the "Open" means open.
But there is that moment when confusing the marketplace of Open Standards and Open XML technologies just didn't go quite far enough. So what do they do? They list a number of file formats as Open Standards that meet their requirements. They list the one way PDF as an open standard file format. They include that byzantine marvel of rube goldberg innovative confusion, the RTF file format, as an open standard. They go further to stamp the proprietary, restrictive, and patently secretive MSXML file format as an open standard. An incredible act that ushers in acceptance of all the proprietary Microsoft file formats as open and acceptable in that they can be transformed into MSXML.
And what do they do with OpenDocument? They mark it acceptable as an open standard "pending" ratification by OASIS.
Why is OpenDocument the only file format in the Commonwealth's list that requires ratification by an Open Standards Group? Yeah. You got it. It's a set up. And Open Source is the target.
We need this ratification by OASIS. Then we need to get the specification to ISO as soon as possible. The new OASIS IPR policy (Intellectual Property Rights) has truly corrupted the Open Standards process at OASIS. The EU saw it coming. And our benefactor Sun saw this coming years ago when the specification was first submitted to OASIS. But i'll save that rant for another day. After the voting closes. (Now at 84 of 341 delegates voting in support of OpenDocument ...... 25% and we're in the final hours).
~ge~
Christian Einfeldt wrote:
Hi Gary,
Thanks for keeping us informed of this very nitty gritty geeky but apparently crucial piece of news. There are many of us in the community, including myself foremost of all, who will probably not appreciate the significance of this news for quite some time. I do get the sense, though, that a good comparison for this news would be akin to Munich's announcement of its decision to go open source, even though this decision will probably not hit the world press as that decision did.
