CNet reports today that legislators at the State of Massachusetts are open to multiple formats in the highly publicised debate over document retention standards. In other words, they wouldn't object to Microsoft's Open XML format in addition to ODF.
I've been following this subject for a while, and blogged on it a couple of times, most recently here.
While you can argue that the State of Massachusetts has played an unusually activist role, the State has a requirement -- long-term document access -- that is undeniably important. The two formats they have adopted so far -- PDF and ODF -- met the requirements of being standards-based. In addition PDF met the requirement of being widely (almost universally) used, and ODF is at least broadly endorsed.
You can argue also that Microsoft should have taken the ECMA/ISO path sooner and avoided some of the vitriol. However, better late than never. If the standards and approval processes go as expected, the State's users will be able to continue to use Microsoft Office after 2007. Good news for Micrsoft, for sure, but also continuity for the State's employees.
It's worth noting that IBM lobbied heavily to prevent ECMA from working on Open XML. It's possible that IBM's motives have little to do with long-term document access and the pursuit of standards. Exclusive support for ODF (thus blocking the use of Microsoft Office) would provide a much-needed market lift for IBM's new Workplace product, which relies entirely on ODF and Open Office.
There's nothing wrong with competing, but Is that what standards leadership is for?
Comments