To David Coursey @ eWeek: Why
Massachusetts Made the Right
Decision

Howdy David.

I need to point out some misperceptions in your analysis of the
Massachusetts open document format decision. I've cc:'d Eric Kriss,
Secretary, Executive Office for Administration and Finance from that
state. who may be able to shed more light.

In this article:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1855876,00.asp

1. You state:

"Under Quinn's order, Microsoft formats, though supported by free
readers as well as competitive applications like WordPerfect and
OpenOffice are not considered "open" and cannot be used by the
state's workers after the 2007 deadline."</i>

My response:

WordPerfect and OpenOffice.org have imperfect filters for Microsoft Office
document formats. This is mostly because those formats are closed, so
achieving a 100% interoperability is extremely hard. What's more alarming
is the fact different versions of Microsoft Office also have imperfect
filters for Microsoft Office!


2. You state:

"Part of the reason for this is that most businesses, including the
state of Massachusetts, already have a set of file formats that work just
fine and provide a migration path as technology changes. These are the
Microsoft formats, which may not be open but are so widely used that it's
been many years since I've run into someone who had trouble opening a
Microsoft document."

My response:

You obviously don't mix in the right circles ;-) Our office has trouble
opening MS Office files on a regular basis. People send us these documents
rather than sending PDFs.

Regardless, Microsoft's 'old' formats, DOX, XLS, PPT and MDB are not
future-proof as they are not accessible programmatically, as XML document
formats are. Microsoft's Word XML document format is in far less use that
OpenOffice.org's XML format, which forms the basis for the OASIS
OpenDocument format. OpenOffice.org's XML format has been in widespread
use for over 5 years. Microsoft's hasn't.

In short, Massachusetts wants an XML schema for government documents,
Microsoft's DOC files are not in XML format. Massachusetts wants an open
document format. Microsoft's Word XML is not open.

I don't see how you don't see this simple mismatch of requirements. Why
Massachusetts wants an open XML schema is Massachusetts's business, but to
an industry player like me who has seen 5 generations of document
processing systems in 26 years, an open, legally unencumbered XML schema
which is amenable to computational processing and access in perpetuity,
this is the only way to go.

3. You state:

"I am concerned that by requiring OpenDocument that Mr. Quinn may be
aligning Massachusetts with what becomes a second-rate file format as
Microsoft keeps expanding into XML and metadata and OpenDocument may have
trouble keeping up."

My response:

OpenDocument, in preparation and use for over 5 years, has shown itself to
be a first-rate file format, certainly much better than DOC, PPT etc. If
you haven't used it for a few years like I have, ask me why.

Finally, if Microsoft decides not to support alternative XML metadata
within its desktop search, tough. There are competing desktop search
systems already extant. And as OpenDocument gains broader acceptance, it
will be Microsoft which misses out by having competitors' search engines
in much wider deployment.

David, you really have to understand this as part of a broader picture -
Microsoft no longer rules the platform space. Once you accept this, then
you'll note that decisions like the Massachusetts one become all the more
clear.