Bonjour,
Sait-on si TDF a produit ou fera un commentaire sur le choix de la
bureautique ?? (je doute pas que les gros éditeurs donneront leur avis).
Car cela avait été fait pour lors du processus similaire réalisé par le
gouvernement britannique :
http://standards.data.gov.uk/comment/974#comment-974
Pour rappel:
The Document Foundation enthusiastically supports the UK Government proposal
supporting the adoption of ODF 1.1 and ODF 1.2, alongside with HTML 4.01 and
HTML5, CSV and TXT, for sharing or collaborating with government documents.
According to Vint Cerf, Google's VP and Chief Internet Evangelist: Google
supports the use of ODF as an open document format. ODF is an international
open standard free to implement by all software developers without
restrictions. Choosing ODF will allow the UK Government to select from a wide
range of implementations to get the best value for UK taxpayers.
As an open standard free to implement, ODF has developed an ecosystem that
values technical excellence, progress and interoperability above all other
factors. The Document Foundation is proud to compete in a market that
prioritizes these attributes and at the same time helps governments,
organizations and companies to cooperate in order to push forward the
interoperability envelope.
ODF has enabled different implementations to interact in real world scenarios
like no other productivity related technology has done in the past, and as
such has been quickly adopted by a diverse set of entities. In fact, choosing
ODF as the single standard for editable office documents will offer many
advantages from several points of view:
1. ODF is maintained by a truly independent organization as OASIS, which has
no hidden ties to one single software vendor (like OOXML with Microsoft,
through the European Computer Manufacturers Association). In addition, most
software vendors - including Microsoft - are members of OASIS, and as such
are involved in the development of the ODF standard (and in many cases
support the ODF format). As such, ODF is the best choice between document
standards because of its transparent independence.
2. According to Jim Thatcher, Principal Program Manager, Office Standards,
Microsoft Corporation: Microsoft has successfully implemented the OASIS Open
Document Format (ODF) Version 1.2 Standard in the Microsoft Office 2013 and
Microsoft Office 365 products. Our testing has shown that these
implementations of ODF 1.2 provide a high level of interoperability between
Microsoft Office and other independent implementations of the standard.
Microsoft technical experts participated in the ODF Technical Committee, with
specific focus on the OpenFormula and digital signature specifications. In
Microsoft's opinion the ODF 1.2 specification represents a significant
improvement to the ODF standard. So, ODF is a good choice even according to
Microsoft experts.
3. Native ODF support is wider than native OOXML support. In fact, because of
its non standard nature, native OOXML support is offered only by MS Office.
On the contrary, native ODF support is provided not only by LibreOffice and
Apache OpenOffice - both derived from the original OpenOffice.org project -
but also from other productivity software such as Calligra, AbiWord and
Gnumeric, and by Microsoft Office. Therefore, the addition of a second
document standard like OOXML would only represent an additional burden for
the user, without any substantial advantage for the community. Also,
maintaining two standards would be significantly more expensive for the
government than maintaining one. In fact, standards are evolving with time,
although slowly, and keeping them aligned - in order to guarantee a
transparent interoperability - would indeed be a problem.
3. OOXML, as a standard, has had at least four different impersonation since
its inception: 2007 transitional, 2010 transitional, 2013 transitional and
2013 strict. In addition, Microsoft Office 2011 for Macintosh adds another
transitional version of OOXML. None of these transitional impersonations
are falling into the standard document format definition, as they are
including a number of proprietary blobs. In addition, the standard compliance
of OOXML 2013 strict has still to be fully evaluated. In fact, it looks like
Microsoft Excel 2013 behaves in a rather strange way when it opens one of its
own spreadsheets including the dates between February 1, 1900, and March 1,
1900, and saved in OOXML strict (more here: http://wp.me/p4wCe-fa). On the
contrary, none of the ODF implementations can be considered as transitional
versus the standard, and this makes ODF support more predictable.
4. OOXML four different impersonations are part of Microsoft new end user
lock-in strategy, which is more sophisticated than the original one based on
proprietary formats. Today, lock-in is based on more
