By Jason Brooks
September 9, 2005
SourceOpinion: The plan to move toward "open" formats isn't foolhardy if Massachusetts thinks it can better serve taxpayers by escaping proprietary lock.We've had two opportunities this week to hear from eWEEK.com's David Coursey on why it's a bad idea for Massachusetts to opt to use only "open" document formats by 2007. Coursey has gone so far as to suggest that only an ideologue or a fool would attempt to stand up to Microsoft in this way.
I disagree. Massachusetts, along with most other governments, corporations and individuals in this country and around the world, has dug itself into a hole by tying up so much of its data in a format that can be properly accessed only by the products of a single supplier.
There's no reason any organization should allow itself to be cornered into such a situation, at least without making an effort to maneuver its way out.
Rather than shrug his shoulders and keep digging, Massachusetts' CIO Peter Quinn is simply looking out for the best interests of his state by planning a way out of this hole. Other organizations would do well to join the Bay State in pursuing open formats for their own use, as well.
Open Enough?
When Massachusetts talks about open document formats, it's talking about formats for which the specifications are available and broadly adoptable. Microsoft's DOC format, the current de facto standard for text documents, definitely fails the openness test.
The specifications for Microsoft's DOC format are closed, so if you're building a potential Word rival that's supposed to consume and create DOC files, you've got an undocumented binary black box for a target. As a result, only Microsoft products can offer 100 percent compatibility, which is a deal-breaker for organizations that wish to migrate to another word processor without changing to a new format.
Microsoft's NextGen word processor format, an XML-based version of DOC, is open by nature (it's made out of plain-text XML files), but it's licensed in a way that's incompatible with many open-source projects.
The formats that Massachusetts has blessed as acceptably open—Adobe's PDF and OpenOffice.org 2.0's OpenDocument format (ODT), despite differences in their licensing—are both well-documented and amenable to use by a wide variety of developers, including open-source projects.
In order to keep the state's business, Microsoft would have to begin supporting the ODT file format of its chief competition, OpenOffice.org/StarOffice. The format addition would be trivial for Microsoft to accomplish: Word 2003 already can consume XML, and Microsoft's XML-based DOC format is structurally similar to ODT—it's a group of plain text XML files zipped together into a single file.
PointerThe new Firefox beta adds faster navigation and more Mac support. Click here to read more.
Alternatively, Microsoft could make its own document formats open enough so that its competitors could build full support for them into their own products. In the case of Microsoft's new XML-based format, that would mean making the licensing adjustments or clarifications needed to assure developers that its new formats are as unencumbered as the OpenDocument format.
Microsoft Office represents a large chunk of Microsoft's overall profits, and if OpenOffice.org and the many other upstart office suites could handle Office's file formats as well as Office could, Microsoft's pricey suite would have to compete on its merits alone.
However, I believe that many organizations would continue to buy and use Office even if Microsoft were to take the path that Adobe took long ago when it released a complete specification for PDF.
Take care of business
I don't blame Microsoft for doing what it believes is best for its business—but let's not blame Massachusetts policy makers for doing what they believe is best for their state, either.
Is the state's move toward open formats an opening gambit in a move away from MS Office to a free alternative, or even a move away from Windows all together? It may be, but let's not forget, the state's government is an organization that's funded by tax dollars.
If there's a cheaper way to outfit state workers and schools with the software and the operating environments they require, Massachusetts and other states should at least put themselves into a position where they have the option of making that move.
For now, though, Massachusetts has chosen to shift its default file formats to those for which any developer or firm has an equal chance of building an equally good application to create and consume these documents, thereby ensuring choice and flexibility for itself and for its residents. Where's the controversy or zealotry here?