I think the key here is to bring the question of public access to document formats into question. I have to agree that Word format is the de facto standard due to it's ubiquitous nature in the public domain. Remember that politicians pass the laws and in this case would only take action if the public perceive that the government has an ulterior motive for allowing a proprietary format to become the standard format. In other words, If by not utilizing an M$ product a "citizen" is denied access to official local, state, and federal documents and data bases that fall under the "freedom of information act" and "equal access" provisions of the law then It can be perceived as an illigetimate and illegal use of government revenue to support this. If a politician is put in the light of supporting or favoring a proprietary product that benefits a private sector corporation (e.g. M$) and in doing so is denying any citizen access merely due to the product that he/she has purchased then it can be vicariously interpreted as negative with connotations of collusion and or special interest activities. Until you get the legislators to address an open "standard" then M$ products will always have in unfair advantage and will unduly control the market by developing formats that discludes others. By passing legislation that mandates that all governemt documents in digital media must adhere to a format that is accessible to any product or technology that adheres to said proposed standard the public is assured of access. It can either come in the form of mandating M$ to give access to source for the Word format, or to adopt a format that is standard on an international basis. Given that M$ Word formats are so ubiquitious in the public and private domain it would be much more concievable to mandate the source be opened. The alternative to an international standard adoption would follow in course due to the fact the other competing software developers would be able to conform to the Word format. This would allow any existing documentation to remain in place with out have to convert massive amount of data at a substaintial cost to the tax payers and unduly using needed government resources and time. IMHO. Curtis On Saturday 16 June 2001 11:13 am, Paul Abrahams wrote:
peter hollings wrote:
A great idea! Why should our tax dollars go into any proprietary technology? Why not have a requirement that applied at the time of purchase that said that the purchased software must save its information in open formats? Why should our government buy software that stores information (e.g., word processing documents) in a proprietary format that not only is non-public, but under the terms of the purchaser's license cannot be reverse engineered? The public has a strong interest here and it seems that it's not being exercised for some reason, perhaps ignorance.
Well, the Word format is, I suppose, de facto proprietary, but that could be changed. I doubt if the format itself is patentable. What I'm proposing is to open up a closed format but not discard it.
Paul