Rob is right on! I included the wrong link, thanks for catching that...
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> For what it's worth, the latest wayback code is:
> And being developed by the IIPC consortium, rather than just the Internet
> Archive alone.
> It has many additional features, contributed by other members.
> It should be used in preference to the sourceforge version, IMO.
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:00 AM, L Snider <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Hi Kathryn,
> > Right now the WARC format is considered the best preservation format for
> > websites/social media, in terms of digital archives. It is our best guess
> > right now. It will likely will be with us for a long time, because it has
> > been adopted by most of the major players.
> > The way I have seen WARCs served up is through Wayback, the manual
> > of the Internet Archive's Wayback machine.
> > http://archive-access.sourceforge.net/projects/wayback/index.html
> > I have only used Heritrix and Wayback together, so I haven't played with
> > Wayback and WARCs made another way.
> > I would stick with WARC in terms of preservation, access is another
> > story...that would depend on budget, time, etc.
> > Hope that helps.
> > Cheers
> > Lisa
> > --
> > Lisa Snider
> > Electronic Records Archivist
> > Harry Ransom Center
> > The University of Texas at Austin
> > P.O. Box 7219
> > Austin, Texas 78713-7219
> > P: 512-232-4616
> > www.hrc.utexas.edu
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Kathryn Frederick (Library) <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I'm trying to develop a strategy for preserving issues our school's
> > online
> > > newspaper. Creating a WARC file of the content seems straightforward,
> > > how will that content fair long-term? Also, how is the WARC served to
> > > end-user? Is there some other method I should look at?
> > > Thanks in advance for any advice!
> > > Kathryn
> > >