Tony,
No, the point I am making is that the data format is not the issue here. I
only said the .pdf was a good format as I have found it useful myself - the
issue here is the metadata we use to find the data, whatever format it
happens to be in. That is what we need to discuss.
That said I accept your points about HTML as a better format for portability
and long-term survival.
Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: afa2 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 22 January 2001 10:40
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: pdf
Ed,
It worries me to see you recommending the pdf format for data storage.
Use of pdf raises problems in terms of long term preservation. At the
ADS we already have problems in dealing with data in once popular
formats that are no longer current. It is clear that pdf is difficult to
update or migrate and hence to maintain in the long term. Far better to
recommend established standards such as HTML, plain text or even RTF
which we will still be able to read in a 100 years time.
Unless the formatting of a document is as important as its content (as
in a manuscript perhaps) there seems little justification for using pdf.
Even here SGML might be a better option as pdf output is fairly low
quality (blurry).
Moan over.
Tony
--
______________________________________________________
Tony Austin http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/staff.html
Computing Officer
Archaeology Data Service
The King's Manor
York
YO1 7EP
UK
phone +44 (0)1904-433975
fax +44(0)1904-433939
http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/
______________________________________________________
|