4 ms·

I can see for dynamic information PDF definitely has limitations but a lot of what I get from gov.uk I feel is better in PDF. The web pages are fine for naviga

I can see for dynamic information PDF definitely has limitations but a lot of what I get from gov.uk I feel is better in PDF. The web pages are fine for navigation and overviews but for hard information I much prefer a PDF. A PDF document can be dated and versioned, you download a report from April 2010 and you can keep that as a document. You can then download a newer one if you want, the older version is still available and largely immutable. Archiving a dynamic web page is a lot harder.

masklinn 8y ago
> A PDF document can be dated and versioned, you download a report from April 2010 and you can keep that as a document. You can then download a newer one if you want, the older version is still available and largely immutable. Archiving a dynamic web page is a lot harder. How is it any let alone a lot harder? Save a timestamped copy of the file. Save it as a web archive if you fear assets depletion. Hell, pretty much every platform lets you save pages as PDFs natively, good luck doing the opposite.
- CGamesPlay 8y ago
  Many pages don’t render correctly when printed to PDF (it’s easy to accidentally make your page entirely illegible after printing), and most pages that rely on JavaScript completely fail to operate when saved as a web archive. So saving pages is, in my experience, quite a crapshoot.
  - mjevans 8y ago
    In addition to that point /static/ content on websites can be easily cached. Want to have a forum as an optional /extra/ on an otherwise static page? Maybe OK, but please have a way of getting that forum as a different page (which is updated on some basis, maybe per post, maybe with a cooldown of maximum 1 generation every X or only during low server load, etc).
throwaway37585 8y ago
> A PDF document can be dated and versioned So can an HTML page. > you download a report from April 2010 and you can keep that as a document... Archiving a dynamic web page is a lot harder. Right click, save page as... Am I missing something?
- mijamo 8y ago
  If it's not in archive, you will NOT find the old HTML at all, whereas old PDFs are usually easy to find because someone will have it. In addition saving web pages is a huge pain with all the scripts and CSS to save as well, so then you need to compress that. At last, saving and browsing saved HTML is a pain on mobile and similar devices without a specialized tool.
  - laurent123456 8y ago
    Why not print to PDF in that case? HTML can be converted to many other formats, while PDF cannot.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    > If it's not in archive, you will NOT find the old HTML at all, whereas old PDFs are usually easy to find because someone will have it. I don’t understand this argument at all. The exact same thing can be said for HTML pages. > In addition saving web pages is a huge pain with all the scripts and CSS to save as well, so then you need to compress that. That’s what the webarchive format is for.
    - slavik81 8y ago
      The GDS themselves state that users are more likely to archive their own copies of PDF documents than HTML documents: "users are more likely to download a PDF and continue to refer to it and share it offline" Part of the reason may be that some browsers download PDFs for display in the user's native reader. Though, even in-browser PDF readers like Firefox on desktop have a toolbar with a prominent save button. The use of PDF is a signal to the user that the document can be saved.

masklinn 8y ago

> A PDF document can be dated and versioned, you download a report from April 2010 and you can keep that as a document. You can then download a newer one if you want, the older version is still available and largely immutable. Archiving a dynamic web page is a lot harder. How is it any let alone a lot harder? Save a timestamped copy of the file. Save it as a web archive if you fear assets depletion. Hell, pretty much every platform lets you save pages as PDFs natively, good luck doing the opposite.

CGamesPlay 8y ago
Many pages don’t render correctly when printed to PDF (it’s easy to accidentally make your page entirely illegible after printing), and most pages that rely on JavaScript completely fail to operate when saved as a web archive. So saving pages is, in my experience, quite a crapshoot.
- mjevans 8y ago
  In addition to that point /static/ content on websites can be easily cached. Want to have a forum as an optional /extra/ on an otherwise static page? Maybe OK, but please have a way of getting that forum as a different page (which is updated on some basis, maybe per post, maybe with a cooldown of maximum 1 generation every X or only during low server load, etc).

throwaway37585 8y ago

> A PDF document can be dated and versioned So can an HTML page. > you download a report from April 2010 and you can keep that as a document... Archiving a dynamic web page is a lot harder. Right click, save page as... Am I missing something?

mijamo 8y ago
If it's not in archive, you will NOT find the old HTML at all, whereas old PDFs are usually easy to find because someone will have it. In addition saving web pages is a huge pain with all the scripts and CSS to save as well, so then you need to compress that. At last, saving and browsing saved HTML is a pain on mobile and similar devices without a specialized tool.
- laurent123456 8y ago
  Why not print to PDF in that case? HTML can be converted to many other formats, while PDF cannot.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  > If it's not in archive, you will NOT find the old HTML at all, whereas old PDFs are usually easy to find because someone will have it. I don’t understand this argument at all. The exact same thing can be said for HTML pages. > In addition saving web pages is a huge pain with all the scripts and CSS to save as well, so then you need to compress that. That’s what the webarchive format is for.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    The GDS themselves state that users are more likely to archive their own copies of PDF documents than HTML documents: "users are more likely to download a PDF and continue to refer to it and share it offline" Part of the reason may be that some browsers download PDFs for display in the user's native reader. Though, even in-browser PDF readers like Firefox on desktop have a toolbar with a prominent save button. The use of PDF is a signal to the user that the document can be saved.