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]