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
There are items/options that can be used within a given PDF that will
drastically affect how likely it is that the PDF will still be readable.
* Inclusion of 3D applets or any Adobe Acrobat specific features
I have seen PDFs with 3D chemical applets embedded somehow into the PDF
using a
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
K.G. Schneider writes:
[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
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
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:37 +0200, Mike Taylor wrote:
I would appreciate any comments that anyone on this list has on the
likelihood that PDF will be unreadable in 100 years.
The problem with projections such as these are that we have very little
empiric evidence to build on. The classic
Thanks for the suggestions and links, everyone.
I'll check them out and see what will work for me.
--
Derik A. Badman
Digital Services Librarian
Reference Librarian for Education and Social Work
Temple University Libraries
Paley Library 209
Philadelphia, PA
Phone: 215-204-5250
Email:
It is worth following up on Xiaoming's statement of a limit of 100 uses per
day of the xISSN service with the information that exceptions to this limite
are certainly granted. Annette probably knows that just such an exception
was granted to her LibX project, and LibX remains the single largest
Fair enough. Asking someone to give you a UTF-8 (or other Unicode
encoding) plain text file though -- you better try to heuristically
check the encoding before ingesting it, and plan on a lot of failures.
Typical users using typical consumer software (which tends to be
somewhat unpredictable
Does the xISSN documentation say that exceptions by non-OCLC members can
be asked for, and instruct on where to make the request? If you want to
keep from discouraging use accidentally by people who don't know they
can get an exception, it needs to say that on the same page that talks
about
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Roy Tennant tenna...@oclc.org wrote:
It is worth following up on Xiaoming's statement of a limit of 100 uses per
day of the xISSN service with the information that exceptions to this
limite
are certainly granted. Annette probably knows that just such an
Jonathon,
Likewise that paragraph reads with the same accuracy with the
following alterations
s/UTF-8|Unicode/PDF/
s/encoding/version/
I think the key thing is that garbage in == garbage out, but I feel
happier with garbage that was meant to have been unicode at some
point, compared to a pdf
12 matches
Mail list logo
