←back to thread

384 points ingve | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.782s | source
1. zoobab ◴[] No.41878906[source]
PDF is better for archiving, but what about videos?

HTML ready sucks for archiving.

replies(2): >>41880370 #>>41889204 #
2. klez ◴[] No.41880370[source]
Can you please explain what you mean that PDF is better for archiving while HTML sucks in this aspect? What aspects of the formats are you basing this on?
replies(2): >>41882025 #>>41882054 #
3. ◴[] No.41882025[source]
4. gazook89 ◴[] No.41882054[source]
I’m not the commenter but I Imagine it just boils down to what you are archiving, but in any case I don’t think the commenter really understands what html is being used for here. The “preserved” material doesn’t have to be html, the html is just to set up the directory navigation. In the blog post, they even mention that each type of material is its own website so that each website can be designed to handle that file/data type.
5. approxim8ion ◴[] No.41889204[source]
HTML supports video just fine and has for years. Can't imagine why it would be an issue.