4 ms·

>> How do you do annotation? > Same as PDF - if you want that, get an app that has that feature. In PDFs, annotation is a well-established part of the specifi

>> How do you do annotation? > Same as PDF - if you want that, get an app that has that feature. In PDFs, annotation is a well-established part of the specification. I know my annotations on whatever app I use today will be fully functional in any app, on any colleagues or my computers, decades into the future. I could send you an annotated PDF document now and you could read it, annotate it yourself, and send it back. >> And how do you know you can read the document decades into the future? > Same as PDF, except that HTML is a simpler format. PDF's spec prioritizes long-term preservation (or whatever term they use), especially in PDF/A format. HTML does not. >> Also, for longer texts, isn't it harder to read without the high-quality readability enhancements, such as typefaces, layouts, etc.? > HTML has all these things? (With CSS, I mean.) PDFs look much better to me than HTML. I don't think HTML capabilities are on the same level, but I don't know the technical underpinnings of layout well enough to specify why. I know precise layout in HTML can be a challenge.

crabmusket 3y ago
These are great points. When I invent my PDF successor based on HTML I'll have to make sure I have good answers! (I'm being sincere, even if I think the chances of my making such a thing, and it being any kind of successful, are slim). Thanks for helping me understand your perspective!
cxr 3y ago
> PDF's spec prioritizes long-term preservation (or whatever term they use), especially in PDF/A format. HTML does not. Uh, okay. HTML is a dead simple plain text format that has been around for 30+ years. PDF hasn't been a well-supported open standard for half that. And it's no less complex now than it was in 2008, so good luck implementing a PDF reader on your own. In contrast, a mediocre programmer can hack something together that would make the contents of a given file in archive-quality HTML accessible within an afternoon. (Hell, you don't even need a programming system for it—any monkey with some patience could do it by hand, using a text editor while working on a copy of the raw contents of the file.)
- ghusbands 3y ago
  Unless you're talking about some odd, restricted subset of HTML, writing a HTML renderer is an incredibly complicated task. Chromium and Firefox are both huge and have had so much development, and still have differing outputs for the same HTML. CSS, SVG and JS are all part of a complete renderer, and are huge projects in their own right. (And you're not getting the "interactive charts" mentioned in the article without implementing most of that.)
  - pasc1878 3y ago
    You can easily implement a HTML reader that extracts the text and images to make the information understandable, agreed it will not look pretty. The difference is what matters - The information or the look of the document. HTML lets you get the information and you can alter the look. PDF locks in the look but is more difficult to get the information.
    - crabmusket 3y ago
      I agree with this wholeheartedly. PDF is essentially a raster format when what I want for most documents is the content, not the pixels.
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        Yes, PDF is for consistent presentation, anywhere, any time, forever. Other formats are for content and other needs, including editing. It's a question of the user's needs in that situation; to dismiss one or the other format or needs is just embracing ignorance as an easy solution. However, if EPUB could get the precise formatting (maybe they already do), annotation, and long-term preservation correct, they could be all - or many - things to many people.
        pasc1878 3y ago
        No pub is based on HTML and is viewable on different devices which must look different. So will not meet that requirement. I think annotations also are not part of ePub they need to be part of a specification that build on epub. epub is the original. Long term preservation is there as long as you don't try to do complex formatting in CSS.

crabmusket 3y ago

These are great points. When I invent my PDF successor based on HTML I'll have to make sure I have good answers! (I'm being sincere, even if I think the chances of my making such a thing, and it being any kind of successful, are slim). Thanks for helping me understand your perspective!

cxr 3y ago

> PDF's spec prioritizes long-term preservation (or whatever term they use), especially in PDF/A format. HTML does not. Uh, okay. HTML is a dead simple plain text format that has been around for 30+ years. PDF hasn't been a well-supported open standard for half that. And it's no less complex now than it was in 2008, so good luck implementing a PDF reader on your own. In contrast, a mediocre programmer can hack something together that would make the contents of a given file in archive-quality HTML accessible within an afternoon. (Hell, you don't even need a programming system for it—any monkey with some patience could do it by hand, using a text editor while working on a copy of the raw contents of the file.)

ghusbands 3y ago
Unless you're talking about some odd, restricted subset of HTML, writing a HTML renderer is an incredibly complicated task. Chromium and Firefox are both huge and have had so much development, and still have differing outputs for the same HTML. CSS, SVG and JS are all part of a complete renderer, and are huge projects in their own right. (And you're not getting the "interactive charts" mentioned in the article without implementing most of that.)
- pasc1878 3y ago
  You can easily implement a HTML reader that extracts the text and images to make the information understandable, agreed it will not look pretty. The difference is what matters - The information or the look of the document. HTML lets you get the information and you can alter the look. PDF locks in the look but is more difficult to get the information.
  - crabmusket 3y ago
    I agree with this wholeheartedly. PDF is essentially a raster format when what I want for most documents is the content, not the pixels.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      Yes, PDF is for consistent presentation, anywhere, any time, forever. Other formats are for content and other needs, including editing. It's a question of the user's needs in that situation; to dismiss one or the other format or needs is just embracing ignorance as an easy solution. However, if EPUB could get the precise formatting (maybe they already do), annotation, and long-term preservation correct, they could be all - or many - things to many people.
      - pasc1878 3y ago
        No pub is based on HTML and is viewable on different devices which must look different. So will not meet that requirement. I think annotations also are not part of ePub they need to be part of a specification that build on epub. epub is the original. Long term preservation is there as long as you don't try to do complex formatting in CSS.