PlexNex welcomes Gary Edwards, a founding member of the OASIS OpenDocument TC and also of the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc., as a guest contributor.
Courtesy of our good friend and ODF freedom fighter Andy Updegrove, we learn that in the State of Minnesota a bill was recently introduced that would require all Executive branch agencies there to:
"use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a project do not make it technically impossible to do this." ("Bill Introduced in Minnesota to Require Use of 'Open Data Formats'")
Andy goes on to say,
“On its face, the amendment is vendor neutral. It does, however, include one provision that may have been directed at Microsoft, which has at times been criticized for adding proprietary extensions to otherwise standards-compliant product features. That provision is found in the definition of an "open standard," and requires that if a standard, "allows extensions, ensures that all extensions of the data format are themselves documented and have the other characteristics of an open data format..."
This begs the question: Is MSECMAXML a kind of SOAP for the Windows-integrated stack of proprietary interfaces, protocols and messaging methods?
Some quick comments about SOAP: The SOAP protocol is often described as an XML wrapper around a content-data payload that may or may not be binary. As such, SOAP, (Simple Object Access Protocol) is also a way for programs to communicate with other programs, using XML. SOAP uses XML to encapsulate the data that needs to be sent to the remote subroutine. And, of course, XML is used to return data from the subroutine and to return notification of any error condition that might have occurred ("SOAP" - XML Cover Pages).
XML can be used to transfer data from one program to another, but the degree of interoperability still depends on the dependencies of the information within the SOAP container. Ah Hah! By using an "Open" wrapper for platform-bound and application-dependent "content," Chairman Bill gets to have his cake and eat it too.
It's strange that Microsoft blooger and co-chair of the MSECMAXML committee, Brian Jones, made a big deal out of the effort to strip MS XP Office 2003 MSXML of it's proprietary dependencies - including the infamous binary key first identified by the European Union's Valoris Report on Open Document Formats (PDF). Brian claimed that all dependencies had been removed. But what Microsoft submitted to ECMA is something else: the "ECMA Spec" is 1,900 pages of dependencies; some going as far back as the busted and highly insecure Windows 3.0 WMF implementation for rendering thumbnails in PowerPoint and Windows Explorer.
Considering the Minnsota Bill, you've got to love the term, “restricted file format,” which occurs repeatedly in this document. According to the Bill, the use of restricted file formats has to be “justified” and reviewed on a timely basis. For sure, someone (in Minnesota) has been paying attention to the cat and mouse game playing out between Microsoft and governments seeking to move to bi-modal analog/digital-capable information infrastructures based on SOA principles:
- The EU makes the move to Open Standards, Open XML technologies, and ODF.
- Microsoft counters with open standards – open XML promises.
- Massachusetts grabs the baton, and runs one of the most impressive legs in this marathon rush to computational consumer sovereignty.
- Microsoft counters with a well funded but vicious and politically corrupt personal assault and intimidation campaign.
- The Australian government comes out with the National Archives of Australia , the open source XENA Project, and the comprehensive GovDex Report.
- Microsoft has yet to respond.
- The State of California Air Resources Board offers to all other government divisions their documented and proven experiences with the many advantages of open source – open standards-based systems. (This involves expert advice, technology assistance, open architectural blueprints, proven migration methodologies, and the shared resources to make the migration possible.)
- Microsoft has yet to respond.
- Denmark announces their “Open Standards” definitions as the basis for all RFP's and systems procurement requirements.
Clearly, the governments of the world are set on using Open Standards - Open XML requirements to build migration paths to a future of highly inter-operable and open information infrastructures. Microsoft's “collective” response has been to submit a soaped up XML wrapper of proprietary Windows-integrated stack interfaces, methods and protocols to ECMA for ratification as a standard. It's not open. It's not interchangeable. It's not inter-operable. Indeed, MSECMAXML breaks the most fundamental promise of XML. But hey, it's “XML”.
And now we have the State of Minnesota countering the below-the-belt MSECMAXML counter-punch to ODF, specifically calling Redmond out exactly where they tried to side-step the Open Standards – Open XML requirements box on which so many governments agree. One thing's clear: Microsoft is at war with their customer base, and, the customer base has no intention of accepting anything short of total surrender to their demands for meaningful and truthful open standards-based systems. Microsoft has the money, the means, the corporate-wide inclination to deceive and the ruthless take-no-prisoners determination to persist: control of the file format is the key to more than half of their $40 Billion in revenues. That the State of Minnesota would step up and join this brewing blood bath is something to behold.
The stakes in the game of maintaining the incredibly enriching monopoly that is Microsoft just got higher.
~ge~
WOW!!
At last, I thought, here's an authoritative source of the "infamous binary key." Ever since I have heard about that I've been asking to see one (http://orcmid.com/BlunderDome/clueless/2005/10/my-fud-is-fuddier-than-your-fud-so-fud.asp).
I could not find one in any WordML or other documents, and the best speculation I ever saw was that someone didn't know what the Unicode byte order mark is on the front of some XML files. But I couldn't find anything definitive about what the evidence for this key was and I gave up.
I figured the Valoris Report would finally solve it. Well, the report is an useful and interesting read, but I have one problem.
I searched for "binary key" and there are no hits. There are 16 occurrences of "key" and 15 occurrences of "binary" but none are about that any special binary key (some are about explaining PKI and digitally-signed PDF is a big example).
I read through the description of WordML and found no mention of difficulties or secrets.
So, help me out here. Where is it? Give me a section number. Anything. I really want to know where this "infamous binary key" is so well-hidden.
Posted by: orcmid | April 11, 2006 at 10:54 PM
Oh, darn. Gary, I thought Sam had independently claimed to have found the source on the "infamous binary key." I can't find any mention of anything like that in the Valoris report. Can you please enlighten me where it says anything about such a thing. I checked for "binary key" and all occurrences of "binary" and "key" and came up with zippo. I read the section on WordML and I missed anything that was there too.
Help me out here, chum.
Posted by: orcmid | April 12, 2006 at 12:23 AM