Skip to content

Comment on Archiving URLsparent

Comments

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.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.