Re: Web vs. paper

Chris Croome (chris@atomism.demon.co.uk)
Tue, 02 Sep 1997 22:54:23 GMT


From: Chris Croome <chris@atomism.demon.co.uk>
To: Peter Flynn <pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 22:54:23 GMT
Message-ID: <3412938b.1834554@post.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <199710020026.BAA29163@imbolc.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: Web vs. paper

On 02 Oct 1997 01:26:08 +0100, Peter Flynn
<pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie> wrote:

>**if** the pages are of long-term historical or orgnaizational
>importance then doing them in HTML with CSS is a virtual guarantee
>that you _will_ need to redo them at some future time: HTML is not
>suitable as an archive or repository format -- it's just not rich
>enough.

I don't really understand this, I could do the pages as
.pdf's (it's typeset originaly in pagemaker) but they are
huge and best avoided in my view - that would be richer? But
all the articles only really have a title, stand first type
intro / by line and the body of the article - why do I need
any richer formatting in this case?

> If they're regarded as important, use EAD or TEI and convert
>to HTML for the moment while that remains the dominant DTD in use on
>the Web. When it changes, you'll be well placed to take advantage of
>it. If they're only of transient value (the archivists will probably
>shoot me for saying it) then it doesn't really matter what you use.

Pardon my ignorance but what is EDA, TEI and DTD?


Chris

chris@atomism.demon.co.uk
http://www.atomism.demon.co.uk/