Interesting, but I would think that scanning to a PDF file would better preserve the work for future readers and researchers. That way you're looking at the ori

Interesting, but I would think that scanning to a PDF file would better preserve the work for future readers and researchers. That way you're looking at the original, not a text copy of it. Or have the text copy available. Seems it would be a lot less work. And for me, digital is too transient, too fragile. For photography, I still feel that a piece of film can last longer than a digital file. We have film from more than a hundred years ago but I highly doubt in one hundred years that any digital files created today will still exist. I work for Corbis, and we bought the Otto Bettmann archive, which at the time of purchase, was the most significant archive of images in the world. We began something called "The Keystone Project" which would have digitized the bulk of the archive. Soon though the need to move the archive from the building in Manhattan (which was not air conditioned and had a leaky roof, among other problems) became a very high priority, and the archive now rests deep underground at Iron Mountain in Virginia. The originals are stored at below zero and the original card catalogs are still there for research purposes (though there are numerous portable versions for researchers around the world). Hopefully this preservation will last hundreds of years.