Re: [odf-adoption] Which ODF are we talking about?

[Daniel Carrera <daniel.carrera@zmsl.com>]

Burg, HJM (Harm Jan) van (INNOVATIE) wrote:
> There is a current ODF. A standard greatly dominated by Sun to bash
> Microsoft.

Uhmm... the open document format is neither dominated by Sun (check the 
OpenDocument TC's membership) nor is it to bash Microsoft.

> In my mind this forces us to start working with big industry
> players (including other OASIS members) to achieve a truly open document
> format.

In which way does OpenDocument fail to be truly open? It is a public 
standard without any restriction on use. It is maintained by an 
independent standards body. It was designed by several different 
players, some who are competitors (e.g. Sun, Corel, KDE) and some who 
are customers (e.g. Boeing, National Archives of Australia, Biblical 
Society). I can't imagine any way that OpenDocument could be more open.

> To be exact: in my mind any format not supported by the big
> players does not need an adoption TC because it will never be widely
> adopted.

IBM and Sun are big players. Several large customers and governments are 
adopting it.

> My government or my
> tax administration is currently not supporting or using the present ODF
> nor does it have the intention to do so in the near future.

Perhaps we can discuss the benefits of an open data format for a government.

> Ps if this TC feels that ODF adoption has to mean: only promoting this
> ODF than -of course- I will not hinder the process of this TC and leave.

ODF is the short hand for the OASIS OpenDocument Format for Office 
Applications. I hope you'll be interested in discussing the pros and 
cons of this format both here and at your local government.

Best,
Daniel.
-- 
      /\/`) http://opendocumentfellowship.org
     /\/_/
    /\/_/   A life? Sounds great!
    \/_/    Do you know where I could download one?
    /