Coursey also makes the contention that Massachusetts has "selected a format that is not supported by a single currently shipping office suite." And if you review the on-line article, the sub-title of the piece states "no one has the software to read the format". Odd, I'm writing this article using the OpenDocument format in OpenOffice Beta 2 (as I have been doing most of my work since last spring). And my understanding is that both Koffice and Abiword, if not already supporting the OpenDocument format are moving toward implementing it as well. As far as I can tell, Microsoft is the only vendor producing office productivity software that has chosen NOT to support the OpenDocument format. Yes, Coursey is correct that I am using beta software. Of course, getting a beta of OpenOffice is a lot easier than getting a beta of the MS Office package and no doubt, requires less in the way of computer requirements.

That is one of the more troubling aspects of this particular criticism to me. Coursey tries to set this up as a choice between the OpenDocument format and OOo's successful implementation of it versus the old, proprietary Microsoft .doc format. But it is not. The other alternative is Microsoft's promised XML format for Office documents which it is promising to ship in its next iteration of Office (12? - I've lost track). Coursey sarcastically notes that "I sure hope it ships" in reference to OpenOffice 2.0. I'd suggest there is more uncertainty regarding the next version of Office actually shipping and still containing Microsoft's own, "new" XML formats. Admittedly, OpenOffice 2.0's official release has slipped. I'm happy with that though as I know OpenOffice is trying to make sure the software works correctly instead of shipping some junk just to meet a target shipping date.

Later in the article Coursey notes that the OpenDocument format will fail because it does not meet the goal of "easy to use". He contends this is because people already have the software needed to open Microsoft Office files. The problem is, he doesn't know any better than anyone else whether existing versions of Microsoft Office (or WordPerfect or OpenOffice for that matter) will be able to open the new, XML versions of Office documents. Not that this is news to anyone - Microsoft's inability to support backward compatibility is legendary. Just recently I had the need to open a .pst archive that came from Outlook 2003. Guess what? Yep - Outlook 2000 could not open it. I have to wonder why Coursey thinks all the people that already have software to open .doc files (or other Office type files) will continue to be able to do the same with Microsoft's new XML format using the existing version of Microsoft products they have.

At several points in his article, Coursey contends alternatives to Microsoft are not popular and will not be adopted for a very long time ("the rest of the world will not", "OpenDocument is not popular and isn't likely to become an overnight sensation"). I would suggest to Mr. Coursey that the dike has been breached and you (and Microsoft) will find yourself swept away by your failure to see the shift that is occurring.

I've pretty much limited this article to just looking at Coursey's article. If you want a better idea of why OpenDocument is the best choice, I'd suggest checking out this work by David Wheeler. A very good, in-depth look at the issues - something I'll be sure to keep handy when advocating for others to switch to OpenOffice. I would also suggest reading this article by Joe Wilcox. He seems to be pretty critical of everyone and everything, but I found it an interesting read. I do think he raises some interesting points, especially as to how the pdf format can be considered "open" but not the Office XML format (supposedly forthcoming). I do have to agree with him that Massachusetts' decision has the potential to be a "shot heard 'round the world" type event. I can only hope.