As I understand it, you're actually much better off not 'printing' to PDF, but instead, saving to a format like MHT or MAFF, which preserve the DOM more accurately than a screenshot or PDF.
(I've been using MHT & MAFF a lot over the past few days to archive stuff relating to Silk Road - 183 files so far! - so it's on my mind.)
Yes, there are tradeoffs. But for archival PDF has one major advantage: it is actual, widespread standard widely considered being suitable for archival. Fast-forward 50 years, which one do you think is more likely: finding a PDF reader or a MAFF reader?
How do MHT creation tools handle dynamic pages? Another major win for PDFs are that you are essentially requesting a static version of the content if you use the "print to PDF" method, so it works nicely for archiving even if some fidelity is lost.
it is actual, widespread standard widely considered being suitable for archival.
For archival of webpages? Who recommends that?
Fast-forward 50 years, which one do you think is more likely: finding a PDF reader or a MAFF reader?
If I can't find a MAFF reader, I can unzip the MAFF and deal with the files directly, as I have already done in automating some editing some of the SR MAFFs to remove my username. It was much easier than the last time I wanted to edit a PDF, where it took me several hours to figure out how to do just one edit by hand.
How do MHT creation tools handle dynamic pages?
They don't, but I haven't seen any 'print to PDF' mechanism which handled dynamic pages either. So I'm not sure how this is a 'major win' for PDFs compared to MHT/MAFF.
Doing this can be handy with Creative Commons licensed items, so that you have proof of it. I started doing this when I noticed that some people will change the license to something that is non-CC.
Comments
As I understand it, you're actually much better off not 'printing' to PDF, but instead, saving to a format like MHT or MAFF, which preserve the DOM more accurately than a screenshot or PDF.
(I've been using MHT & MAFF a lot over the past few days to archive stuff relating to Silk Road - 183 files so far! - so it's on my mind.)
Yes, there are tradeoffs. But for archival PDF has one major advantage: it is actual, widespread standard widely considered being suitable for archival. Fast-forward 50 years, which one do you think is more likely: finding a PDF reader or a MAFF reader?
How do MHT creation tools handle dynamic pages? Another major win for PDFs are that you are essentially requesting a static version of the content if you use the "print to PDF" method, so it works nicely for archiving even if some fidelity is lost.
For archival of webpages? Who recommends that?
If I can't find a MAFF reader, I can unzip the MAFF and deal with the files directly, as I have already done in automating some editing some of the SR MAFFs to remove my username. It was much easier than the last time I wanted to edit a PDF, where it took me several hours to figure out how to do just one edit by hand.
They don't, but I haven't seen any 'print to PDF' mechanism which handled dynamic pages either. So I'm not sure how this is a 'major win' for PDFs compared to MHT/MAFF.
Doing this can be handy with Creative Commons licensed items, so that you have proof of it. I started doing this when I noticed that some people will change the license to something that is non-CC.