But, we TOLD you so.
Ever since the debate over open document format policies began in Massachusetts, ACT has advocated goals-based policies rather than proscriptive policies mandating specific technologies. The best policies for ensuring interoperability, competition, and long-term document access are those that create a flexible framework that allows for agencies to choose from all open formats to meet individual goals. Any policy that mandates a single document format for an entire government will inevitably limit the flexibility, choices, and ability to achieve the government goals over the long term, regardless of whether it is ODF, OpenXML, .DOC, or RTF.
Earlier this week, the OpenDocument Foundation made our point more effectively then we could. The OpenDocument Foundation, the organization whose job it was to push the Open Document Format for Office Applications (ODF), announced it was abandoning ODF. The group is disappointed with the ODF development process over the past year; and according Gary Edwards, the group’s founder:
"We can’t meet our market requirements with OpenDocument. The truth is OpenDocument was never designed to meet market requirements."
In lieu of ODF, the Foundation has decided to throw its weight behind the W3C’s Compound Document Format (CDF) because:
- CDF is better suited than ODF for Web-resident documents from Web 2.0 and other hosted application providers. "OpenDocument is not an Internet-ready file format."
- ODF has technical limitation that limit sharing of ODF files with Microsoft Office applications. "The thing you notice about CDF right away is that you are not working in the confines of how OpenOffice implements lists and tables. ODF directly reflects how OpenOffice does things."
This is not to say that ODF is a ‘bad’ standard. The Foundation is not saying that, and ACT has never said that either. It wouldn’t have the support that it does if it was awful. However, it is NOT a one-size fits all solution for all governments and users around the world. If organizations care about compatibility with existing Microsoft Office documents, this is probably not the best solution for them. If they care about Web2.0 compatibility, it might not be the right format for them either.
This is simply more evidence why government policy should avoid locking in specific technologies through legislative or regulatory action. Governments need the flexibility to meet their all their goals and objectives, especially when new technologies are invented every day that place new demands on those formats.
Unfortunately, the ODF-cabal and its allies don’t approve of such open dialogue and criticism, and have already started their character assassination campaign against the OpenDocument Foundation. But, that is something I will discuss further in my next post.