The UK government has made a statement offering cautious and qualified support for the adoption of open standards for government documents, but warns that there is no such thing as a document storage panacea.

The statement forms part of Number 10's response to a petition calling on the government to promote the use of Open Document Format within its ranks.

Government documents must be available for tens if not hundreds of years. Currently much electronic documentation is stored in proprietary formats, such as Microsoft's .doc format. In order to allow future generations access to these documents it is imperative that they be in a fully documented standard.

Broadly, the government's response is that it does champion open standards, where possible, but that no single standard could ever solve the problem of storing multiple document formats:

Where possible the Government only uses products for interoperability that support open standards and specifications in all future IT developments. Interoperability and open standards also support the sustainability of digital information beyond any single generation of technology.

All very helpful, as far as it goes. And as to future policy, the government defers to the experts:

A policy on digital preservation, which includes guidance on the selection of sustainable data formats based on open standards, is being formulated by The National Archives, and will help define the standards for desktop systems.

You can read the petition here and the government's full response here. ®

Related stories

• Norway endorses ODF (16 May 2007)
• IGF Open standards group to beat Microsoft at its own game (1 November 2006)
• Comment The ODF debate: A real world view (13 August 2006)
• Extremadura.gov switches onto Linux (2 August 2006)
• Microsoft dragged into accepting ODF (6 July 2006)
• Microsoft accuses Office rivals of 'standards conflict' (8 March 2006)
• Office formats alliance opens for business (3 March 2006)
• Analysis A truly open Office for Microsoft? (23 November 2005)
• Political challenge to state's Office ruling (3 November 2005)