On 06/15/2009 07:45 AM, K.G. Schneider wrote:

> 
> Setting aside the paper/electronic argument, in terms of canonical files for
> documents intended for long-term preservation, PDF seems a very weak choice.
> Whether or not the actual files will "last" 100 years (I assume that we mean
> that they won't degrade to the point of nonreadability), using a proprietary
> binary format that doesn't readily convert to other formats seems a poor
> choice.


The PDF 1.7 spec was published last year as ISO 32000-1:2008.  PDF/A is also
ISO 19005-1:2005.  All just FWIW, since ISO's history with Microsoft OOXML
raises some questions about how "open" you really have to be to get an ISO number.


> Why not have the documents be sourced in one of the XML-based formats such
> as DocBook or DITA (well-documented, open, text-based, single-source
> publication formats)? Then you can have your PDF and preserve it too.
> (Donning tinfoil hat) You could even produce a handful of paper-based
> documents and hide them in caves around the world. 


I expect the conversation usually starts (and often ends) with, "Hmm...'File,
Save as PDF'.  Bingo!"


-- 
Thomas Dowling
[log in to unmask]