 |
 |
> As far as electronic formats go, I think PDF is as good as > anything -- except maybe plain ASCII text, which is not > nearly as useable (and doesn't allow diagrams, > mathematical equations, non-English letters, etc). There is no requirement that plain text be limited to the ASCII character set repertoire. Although once they were almost synonymous, that is no longer the case [1]. Plain text can encompass anything and everything in the Unicode character set. That includes non-Roman scripts, mathematical symbols, yada, yada, yada. -- Michael [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_text # Michael Doran, Systems Librarian # University of Texas at Arlington # 817-272-5326 office # 817-688-1926 mobile # [log in to unmask] # http://rocky.uta.edu/doran/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > Behalf Of Jonathan Rochkind > Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 9:13 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Durability of PDFs > > The bet is that PDFs are so popular that _someone_ (the archival > community if no-one else, but probably someone else) will ensure that > they continue to be readable somehow. > > These are real non-trivial issues in electronic archiving > though, issues > that the archival community. It is generally a safe assumption that > good electronic archiving over the decades-and-more term > requires some > regular attention by an electronic archivist to make sure that files > remain readable, and are converted to new formats when necessary. As > well as attention to avoiding actual bit-level corruption of > files. You > can't neccesarily just dump files on a HD and ignore them and expect > they'll be readable in 100 years, that much is true -- and > true pretty > much regardless of particular electronic format you choose. > > As far as electronic formats go, I think PDF is as good as > anything -- > except maybe plain ASCII text, which is not nearly as useable (and > doesn't allow diagrams, mathematical equations, non-English letters, > etc). I don't know why you're colleague has decided that > "30-40 years" > is the horizon after which PDF specifically will become "unreadable", > this seems like just a wild guess to me, but it would be > interesting to > see if he has any particular evidence to back up this claim. > > So there are real issues with electronic archiving, but > unless they lead > you to refuse to accept electronic submissions at all, you're > just going > to have to deal with them, it's not really an issue of PDF > specifically, > but it is true that "just dump files on a HD and forget about > them and > assume they'll be readable in 100 years" is not a particularly safe > electronic archiving strategy. > > Jonathan > > Mike Taylor wrote: > > Dear CODE4LIB colleagues, > > > > In one of my alternative incarnations, I am a zoological taxonomist. > > One of the big issues for taxonomy right now is whether to accept as > > nomenclaturally valid papers that are published only in electronic > > form, i.e. not printed on paper by a publisher. > > > > In a discussion of this matter, a colleague has claimed: > > > > > >> [PDF files will not become unreadable] in the next 30-40 years. > >> Possibly not in the 20 years that will follow. After that, > when only > >> 30-year and older documents are in the PDF format, the danger will > >> increase that this information will not be readable any more. It is > >> generally considered as quite unlikely that PDF will be readable in > >> 100 years. > >> > > > > I would appreciate any comments that anyone on this list has on the > > likelihood that PDF will be unreadable in 100 years. > > > > Many thanks, > > > > _/|_ > ___________________________________________________________________ > > /o ) \/ Mike Taylor <[log in to unmask]> > http://www.miketaylor.org.uk > > )_v__/\ "Can't someone act COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER > without arousing > > suspicion?" -- Bob the Angry Flower, www.angryflower.com > > > > >