Welcome to Orcmid's Lair, the playground for family connections, pastimes, and scholarly vocation -- the collected professional and recreational work of Dennis E. Hamilton

Recent Items
 
California Won’t Be Outdone: Banning Zip, PDF, Tex...
 
The Future of Microsoft Office? I couldn't help my...
 
At My Age, It’s Time To Get Busy Find inspiration ...
 
Peter Naur: Science for Computer Science Peter Nau...
 
OOX-ODF: Is that an XML I See Before Me? Stephane ...
 
Blogger: Sudden-Death Updating
 
OOX-ODF: Artillery Duels and Document Sleuthing
 
OOX-ODF and the Mystery Document Flavors
 
How Publicly-Owned Document Standards Matter
 
OOX-ODF: The Danger of Finding Only What You're Lo...

California Won’t Be Outdone: Banning Zip, PDF, Text and HTML Too?

Bob Sutor points out that another state legislator has offered up an “open extensible markup language-based, XML-based file format [07–08 AB 1668].”

Apart from whatever the bandwagon effect is here, it would be wonderful if the legislation made some sense.  In California’s case, the bill operates in much the same manner as earlier examples:

• The legislation is basically direction to an appropriate state agency.  In California, it is the Department of Technical Services.
     
• All state agencies would be required to create, exchange, and preserve all documents [”including, but not limited to, text, spreadsheets, and presentations”] in “an open extensible markup language-based, XML-based file format, and to start to become equipped to receive any document in an open, XML-based file format.” 
    
• The clumsy and vague wordings might be worked over before this legislation is close to passage, if it even gets very far along in the legislative agenda.  Whenever there is passage, the job of figuring this all out will fall on the California Department of Technical Services, which would have the responsibility “to evaluate, as specified, all open, XML-based file formats and to develop guidelines, as specified, for state agencies in using open, XML-based file formats.” [my emphasis]
     
• No one, so far, talks much about how products (not formats) are going to be qualified for adoption in state agencies, and how that fits into guidelines for using those products such that the purpose of adopting the formats (which is not stated at all in the California Assembly bill) is achieved.  California does request that the department consider how and whether existing documents should be converted.

This new bill does provide its version of the by-now standard litany.  The department is charged to consider these features:

1. “Interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms
   and applications.
2. “Fully published and available royalty-free.
3. “Implemented by multiple vendors.
4. “Controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.”

I also tend to be sloppy about use of “interoperability” in this context.  We should remind ourselves that having a standard format is an enabler for interoperability, it is not an achiever of interoperability.  I’m heartened that interchange is addressed, although not using that term. 

So, as California goes, so goes the nation?  It will be very interesting to see the level of sanity, if any, that is achieved before any of these bills reach the point of serious consideration. 

The budget requests from the responsible agencies should be quite challenging.  All I can say is good luck with that part.

There are many rivers to ford and oceans to swim before effective interchange and preservation is all sorted out.  I’m surprised at the hastiness of these initiatives.

posted by orcmid at 2/27/2007 10:45:00 AM