Opinion: The State of Massachusetts should not forsake Microsoft file formats, which are "open enough" for many users.My recent column on the State of Massachusetts' plan to require all documents to be stored in an "open" format has drawn considerable comment from readers.
It was a difficult column to write because there are so many factors at play and I am happy to expand upon it in response to the questions I've received.
First, it's not clear what Peter Quinn, the state's CIO, is trying to accomplish.
I am not sure what the real problem is with using Microsoft file formats. No, they are not open, but they aren't completely closed, either.
There are a number of non-Microsoft apps that support them. That makes Microsoft file formats "open enough" for many users.
Now, suppose Massachusetts moves to an "open" format that Microsoft doesn't support. Considering that the vast majority of people already use Microsoft formats, rather than providing them better access to information, the move to an open format could make access more difficult.
In other words: Is an open format with limited application support any better than a closed format with wide application and free reader support?
Using Microsoft formats also ensures compatibility with new Microsoft technologies that rely on those formats.
The OpenDocument format, used by OpenOffice, is one of two considered "open" under the Massachusetts plan. But, OpenDocument is not widely supported and if Microsoft doesn't support it, most users will never see it.
OpenOffice is a fine suite, but even as a free program it hasn't caught on. Most users I know would continue using Microsoft Office, given the choice.
My gut is that Massachusetts CIO Quinn wants to take that choice away from them.
Read the full story on eweek.com: Massachusetts' Move to Open Format is Close-minded
Graphics Tools 
