[Coco] why you should stick with pdf

[Andrew]

I wanted to throw my 2 cents in:

We need a comparison - something that I would argue is why are we 
contemplating software readers anyhow (whether PDF or Djvu)? All that is 
being done is archiving some scans at a certain resolution and some way 
of paging thru them. I tend to doubt that a PDF or Djvu file reduces 
size so much of a bunch of scans, than using some generated HTML with 
frames as a viewer or some javascript or something like that.

But - I really don't know.

So - first off, we need a comparison (size and quality) between:

1. PDF format
2. Djvu format
3. "Raw" format (that is, the raw pictures *used* to build the above)

Tack on 5k or so to the last one to make up for the HTML/Javascript 
viewer (if one is needed, I will be the first to volunteer to find/write 
one).

I like the argument for Djvu as well as for PDF - they both have their 
pros and cons. We need to ask ourselves, as a community, why are we 
doing this? Are we doing it so that everyone who has a CoCo *now* can 
view the Rainbow from the past? Or are we doing it so that everyone who 
lives today or *tommorow*, and has an interest in these (to their time) 
historical documents - can view them?

I can guarantee you that if it is the latter, I would be picking the 
preservation method most likely to survive the ages - which would be the 
raw images with an HTML/javascript viewer. Source included, human 
readable, and in a pinch, a simple image viewer will work (provided you 
can still read the data). The next best would be Djvu, and the last of 
course, PDF format.

I agree with the arguments about PDF formats for other systems being 
behind on platforms other than Mac or Windows. Things have gotten 
better, but I suspect that the format for *nix and others is still 
behind, but it has just caught up to say, 2001 or so levels and most of 
the documents out there are still being made in the older manner (ie, 
for Acrobat Reader 3, 4, and 5) - for those still on Windows 98, most 
likely or something - or those who haven't upgraded their reader.

But - at any time - I would imagine that Adobe or someone else who comes 
along and gobbles up Adobe and their tech - could pull the rug out from 
under everything. Sure - it may be a standard - but it is still a 
corporate controlled "standard" with a public spec that may or may not 
work 20 years or more hence. Don't even get me started on Java, either - 
it is in the same pickle.

For historical archival (isn't this what this project is about?) - we 
should choose the *most* open, and more importantly - the most *FREE* 
(that is, in freedom - the ability to have the standard, the spec, and 
the source, and do with it as you like or NEED, FOREVER) - manner in 
which to archive these magazines for the general public consumption (I 
would argue only take full scan raw image TIFFs or something - but those 
would be huge - personally, I would love it if such a set were made 
available - I would probably pay $200.00 or more for such a set).

This manner would (obviously) have to be raw images with an 
HTML/javascript viewer, or Djvu (where the source and spec are 
available, and can be included on the discs with the magazine, and is GPL).

Andrew L. Ayers
Glendale (Phoenix), Arizona