[WEB4LIB] Re: PDF versus HTML

[Dan Lester]

Wednesday, March 30, 2005, 7:04:09 AM, you wrote:

JH> If speed and ease of use, as well as file space issues, are of primary
JH> importants, HTML is the way to go. HTML does not require any plugins in
JH> the browser, it takes up 1-10% of the space that PDFs do,

Well, MAYBE if you're comparing a PDF produced from a scanned document
at high resolution.  There is no question that scanned ones are
larger, as they're bitmapped.  We see that with some articles from
some databases, and for documents we deliver to patrons with Ariel and
ILLiad over the web.

JH> and it is a
JH> lot easier to change and correct. Also, links can be easily inserted in
JH> the document.  In order to replace/change/fix a PDF copy of the 
JH> document, you will need to fix the original and re-generate the PDF.

You can insert links in PDF documents with current versions of the
software.  And fixing the original in Word, for example, is no harder
than fixing the original in the HTML editor of your choice.  Depending
on what you're fixing, it can be easier than in HTML.  And
regenerating the PDF is a trivial exercise.  You click on one button
and wait a few seconds.

That being said, I don't think that PDF should be the standard for web
pages, but is ideal for all sorts of documents that require a format
be maintained, which we all know is completely impossible on the web.

dan

-- 
Dan Lester, Data Wrangler  dan at RiverOfData.com 208-283-7711
3577 East Pecan, Boise, Idaho  83716-7115 USA
www.riverofdata.com  Fair is whatever God decides to do.